When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?

Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.

If you look at data through 1995 the forecast appears to be doing quite well. That’s because the computer models appear to have, at least in essence, captured two periods of slight cooling.

The key word is “appear.” The computer models are tuned to account for big volcanoes that are known to induce temporary cooling in the lower atmosphere. These would be the 1982 eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and 1992’s spectacular Mt. Pinatubo, the biggest natural explosion on earth since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded. Obviously, the spread between forecast and observed temperatures grows pretty much every year, and is now a yawning chasm.

It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.

550 thoughts on “When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?”

My eye doesn’t agree that they were kosher up to 1995. So they are right on target at 1977; well that’s when they pushed the reset to zero button, but their slope error from there to 1995 is quite substantial. So they were off the rails right from the get go.
And at 1995, when the real world evidently did change, well their models did too, but the gross exaggeration got even sillier.
So they get no pass from me.

“My eye doesn’t agree that they were kosher up to 1995.”
They weren’t kosher even then. They were curve-fitting. These models were made around then and so of course they needed to match their recent past or they’d be laughable.
A common problem in data science is over-fitting. IPCC models are classic examples of over-fitting; they had so many knobs, it was easy to hindcast to match the temp record, using wrong estimates of volcanoes and aerosol forcings to ‘tweak’ and over-fit their high sensitivity models into an approximation of warming pre-1995. Of course since the models were GIGO and based on over-high CO2 sensitivity estimates, you get bad results. Simpler models with fewer parameters can only work with a certain range of sensitivity estimates (eg see the Otto paper, Nic Lewis paper etc.)
Curiously, scaling IPCC model sensitivities by 1/2 and you get pretty good fit post 1995. maybe that would be a clue as to what the real CO2 sensitivity is. When will the climate scientists admit that?

patmcguinness
Cutting the post-’95 forecast increase in half only helps for maybe 5 years. Then the problem continues. It doesn’t look like the model problem is just the forcing overestimate, there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole approach. There are too many bolts missing for this thing to fly right.

The statement “It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage…” sums it up perfectly for me. Though technically I am an engineer rather than a scientist, same principle applies. It surprises me how angry it makes me. I have typically voted democrat in POTUS elections, but right now I am ready to cast my vote for any candidate who vows to break the knees of this despicable movement substituting itself for science.

Me, too, Joe, regarding elections.
What really frosts me is not that climate scientists have been so remiss, but that the major scientific institutions have been so incompetent, and so eagerly supported the AGW bandwagon. All of the blame for the corruption of science that AGW alarm has produced, can be laid right at their facilitating feet.

You are spot on, Pat. Never would I have believed this could happen in our modern day had I not witnessed it personally. The very idea that the APS would use the term “incontrovertible” describing predictions of something so complex and chaotic as the climate leaves me dumbfounded. My theory is that a small group of activists managed to capture top positions in these organizations and thereby drive policy statements. I suspect the majority of members weren’t paying attention, but I think they are finally waking up!

So averagejoe and Pat Frank, freely admit they voted for this mess.
But they want to put the blame on someone else. Voting is right (or privilege) that comes encumbered with a responsibility.
If you don’t want to take responsibility for the actions of those you put in power, then you shouldn’t vote.

They still can’t prove that a hole in the ozone layer wasn’t there before mankind existed, or that it’s a threat. This claim of success is an easy way to let it die and then go villainize another gas or chemical to make their living.

Phthalates in plastics are next. (… wouldn’t have known this except for my pregnant niece informing all relatives not to give any baby gifts that have phthalates in them.) Now since when have all plastic-containing items listed all the chemicals and ingredients used in their manufacturing? Also, how does one gracefully enunciate the “f” sound immediately followed by the “th” sound?

Now I thought UFO’s were the strange frozen lumps with no label or other identifying marks you find at the bottom of the freezer when you have to defrost it.
UFO (Unidentified Frozen Object)
James Bull

WOW!!!!! oppti posted images of Greenland showing minimal melting, with the comment “not melting as it should”. Now look at the dates of the images. 1 WEEK APART. Satellite noticeable melting, albeit minor, but in 1 week. Then with the outrageous claim that its not melting as it should! So what should it be doing to satisfy you? Melt like in ice-cream in the summer sun??
This is exactly the problem with the duped or deliberately mis-leading denial agenda. Pretend (YES PRETEND) the scientific world is in on some giant hoax, then pat themselves on the back as they share dubious graphs and links to site probably organised by an oil lobbyist that did a much better as good as a job of duping the public as the banks and financial institutions did before the subprime financial crisis.
Apparently lowly paid scientists, dedicated to the job, are only after the cash….while well funded oil and coal companies are being hard done, by dubious science. The internet is amazing too, at how it can give people the ammunition to pick any believe and have abundant links (even if they are ridiculous) to throw at you.
And your doubts of some crazy website, are just as justified, as the denier’s doubts of NASA, NOAA, OECD, European Science Foundation, American Society of Agronomy, Geological Society of America, to name 5 of hundreds. These organisations are all wrong. They are all liars, or stupid, or plain wrong. Because Joe-blow funded by Caltex says so, and all these sad little people want to jump on this silly band-wagon.
Honest evaluation of the data? No.
Considerable time reading the research? No.
Talk to experts in the field? No.
Attending conference or courses? No.
Educated in science? No.
Linking to one or two people (sometimes deceased or retired) that question the data? YES!!! Oh yes baby.
And, to top it off. They are eager to tell us that all and any time and money spent to better our world by having cleaner energy will (with alarmist overtones) destroy our economy, bankrupt the country and destroy our way of living (I think Bernie Mac beat you to it), take people that subcribe to this amazing way of thinking and you have 90% of the people that subscribe to this site.

In my opinion, it’s hard to blame the guys for taking the money. However, the governments handing it out in return for a little help with the AGENDA is another matter. I do not think the administrations ignore the science – they persist DESPITE the science.

What alleged climate “AGENDA” is the Moderate Republican DINO in the Whitehouse supporting???
Even the Republican candidate for president in the 2008 election promised to do more about carbon than anything Obama has proposed.

I would say before this decade ends because what is GOING to happen is the global temperature trend is going to be in a definitive down turn due to prolonged minimum solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.
The PDO/AMO and ENSO will also be more often then not in a phase which promotes global cooling. Evidence exist for a connection between these indices and solar/lunar parameters.

If natural cooling from things like a quiet sun and cooling Atlantic results in a global net cooling that subsumes the current El Nino, then I think you will begin to see defectors from the GW camp. There appears to be more than a few who are counting on El Nino, a naturally occuring warming anomaly, to increase global temps, so they can claim AGW has resumed.
If that doesn’t happen, then it is strong evidence that we will see cooling after the El Nino effects are gone. This may be sn interesting year.

there will be some warming but the crash of temps after will exceed the downturns that followed 06-07 and 09-10http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
nevertheless this is a desperate time for them and their despicable practices are such that there is no turning back for them. Given the press and the current administration, there is no assurance truth will prevail unless there is a major pushback in congress that takes the gloves and embarrasses the proponents of this. They are so well backed, that only the destruction of their egos will shake them. But alas, it cant just be one person, but many, and the will as we have seen is not there, not only on this issue, but others. It is not about right and wrong, and it never was

Joe Bastardi: “there will be some warming but the crash of temps after will exceed the downturns that followed 06-07 and 09-10”
I am not sure what your evidence is for that. The downturn after ’10 produced 2012, the warmest La Niña year on record. Since then, each year has been warmer.

David A, the article states “The red line is the 5-year running average…”. It would therefore make sense in comparing apples to apples that they also perform a 5 year running average on the satellite and balloon data sets after combining them. That would explain why ’98 isn’t the high. I suspect this is the case and just overlooked saying so.

Has any one here moved home because of their belief in falling temps? Looking at the last 2 (present continuous) winters in the US, has any one moved south?
I live in the North of England, I believe that AGW is wrong, I do believe it is going to get colder. But still I do nothing.
Is that so for everyone?

I don’t understand why you don’t just show a graphic of the temperature from 1998 – 2000. That would show cooling!! That is every better at doing what you are doing, which is mis-leading the public and other ignorant people about the climate temperature trends. If you want to lie, do it well. If you want to be honest, either. 1. Ask a real scientist 2. Learn the real data 3. Show all the data.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

That is every better at doing what you are doing, which is mis-leading the public and other ignorant people about the climate temperature trends. If you want to lie, do it well. If you want to be honest, either. 1. Ask a real scientist 2. Learn the real data 3. Show all the data.

So, how many people do you want to die to prevent this “theoretical” (lack of) warming you so greatly fear?
Let us apply the precautionary principle first.
1. What if your fears are wrong? What is the real harm YOU are requiring to the world’s people over the next 85 years by preventing an beneficial CO2 release?
What is the actual probability of temperatures in 2100 being lower than today’s global average?
What is the probability of temperatures rising by 1 degree by 2100? There’s zero harm, only benefits!
What is the probability of temperatures rising by 2 degrees by 2100? There’s zero harm, only benefits!
What is the probability of temperatures rising by 3 degrees by 2100? There’s zero harm, only benefits!
What is the probability of temperatures rising by 4 degrees by 2100? There’s a small chance of small harm to a few, but many benefits to billions more.
2. How many climate ” scientists” can you buy for 1.3 trillion in taxes for Big Government and 30 trillion in annual carbon trading schemes for Big Finance? If $25,000.00 ten years ago contaminates a think tank’s results for 25 years, what does 92 billion dollars in three years contaminate?

Science doesn’t work with how we feel about the temperature, or based on a dodgy website, like this one. There is real data you can read. Go to the MET office, or NASA website, or any REPUTABLE source of data, and the truth is there in black and white.

“I know that most men — not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems — can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty — conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.”
Leo Tolstoy, Opening to Ch 14. Translation from: What Is Art and Essays on Art (Oxford University Press, 1930, trans. Aylmer Maude)

In my life, I have witnessed otherwise very clever men, being made to look retarded over a woman/girl. It has always astounded me (and yes, I’m married) that men who are usually very level-headed and rational, will become utterly stupid and even border moronic – induced by a female. And yes, I admit to bouts of it (mildly) in my own life.

Most foolishness about women isn’t so much driven by hormones, as about the will to believe.
Ie, I want to believe that she is worth it, I want to believe that she isn’t just playing me, I want to believe that I could possibly build a life with her… and yet she stubbornly refuses to actually be the person I thought she was.
But she isn’t, she wasn’t, and all the time she was playing me she was with someone else anyway.
That is why for most people the analogy is valid. The warmists want to believe there is a catastrophe happening and they are bravely fighting against evil forces to avert it.

This is true Rob S!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Because of the subjective nature of bias’s it makes it very difficult to recognize our own bias’s. In fact, when we are able to recognize our own bias and correct for that, you can make a case for the bias to no longer exist because of the correction.
It is often easy to see the bias in others, especially when they disagree with us………..since we define their bias in terms of our belief system which they cannot see because of what we think is their bias.
Most of us here agree strongly that climate scientists are blatantly biased but how do we know when our own subjective views/bias’s are interfering with our tendency to view climate science objectively and not sometimes lead us down a path in the opposite direction of sources that we assume represent exaggeration or alarmism but are sometimes correct?
Take the massive flooding in the Southern Plains for instance. This appears to me to be one of the few times when you can make a legit case for global warming leading to an increase in events like this. Like the Boy that cried Wolf, we’ve heard the fraudulent cry of “climate change” and “global warming” so often, it’s difficult to imagine when an extreme weather event could have been amplified by global warming.
The drought of 2012? Bullsheet
Superstorm Sandy? Bullsheet
Increasing extreme weather? Bullsheet
Increasing hurricanes? Bullsheet
California drought? Bullsheet
Blizzards? Bullsheet
Extreme cold/Polar Vortex displacement? Bullsheet
Sea levels increasing numerous feet? Bullsheet
Widespread extinctions and threat to creatures? Bullshit X2
Crop yield reductions Bullsheet X3
Global climate model projections to the year 2100 Bullsheet X4
However, excessive rain/flooding events like this one, are the one element that should increase in a warmer atmosphere. Not saying that a naturally caused El Nino was not entirely responsible for every drop of the 20 inches of rain that fell in these locations the past few weeks. We can’t know for sure but it’s not bullsheet to speculate otherwise this time.

biases, not bias’s
(I only do this because there are likely many reading here for whom English is a second language and would otherwise assume from the preceding post that the plural of “bias” is “bias’s”.)

Mr. Maguire,
I think you’ve lost sight of the fact that “global warming” (as commonly used) includes the implied term: “human CO2 caused” (or like terminology).
Your speculation IS just that and nothing more given:
1. as Tyoke pointed out — no warming in over 18 years.
2. no evidence AT ALL that CO2 drives warming (or cooling or ANY-thing in the climate system called “earth”).
I’ve noticed that your comments often (sometimes blatantly, sometimes subtly — and, certainly, not always) support the conjecture that human CO2 causes global warming. You will say in a typical comment many sensible things and many true things about human CO2, then toss in a little bit of AGW speculation. A big bunch of truth with a little bit of false information included. Why?
Janice

Sorry no dice on the Texas rain. We published a paper on trends in rainfall in the heaviest rain-day of the year in regions of the US in International Journal of Climatology. No significant change in the Texas region. Now that paper was published in 2004, somewhat early in “the pause”. Given no warming since its publication, the result would have to hold.

Bullsheet. In the past 8 decades of my life, this is about the fourth heavy rain event associated with an El Nino and it is neither quantitatively nor qualitatively different from those of earlier times.

Bullsheet 2
‘since we define their bias in terms of our belief system’.
Who’s we?You and your mum?I define their bias in terms of scientific facts.
Bullsheet 3
‘when our own subjective views/bias’s are interfering with our tendency to view climate science objectively’
Are you some kind of shrink?

“But, the atmosphere has not warmed in 20 years. (refer to graph)”
Tyoke,
I agree but global temperatures did increase before that in the 1980’s/90’s and in fact are warmer by a bit less than 1 deg. C in the last century+.
My point: “However, excessive rain/flooding events like this one, are the one element that should increase in a warmer atmosphere.” refers to a WARMER atmosphere(relative to 30+ years ago) not a currently WARMING atmosphere(which would denote a rate of the current warming which is not significant)
All things being equal, a WARMER atmosphere is capable of holding more moisture, whether we are referring to +1 deg C in the last century or speculating that an additional increase of +1 deg. C in the next century.

Janice,
I see it like this:
If you have a sponge saturated with water and squeeze with a given force, it will yield an amount of water that can be measured. If you leave everything constant but increase the size of the saturated sponge, then squeeze with the same force, the amount of water that comes out will be greater than with the smaller sponge used earlier.
If all things are equal with respect to 2 weather events, including a saturated air mass at various levels and the 2nd event occurs with a temperature that is 1 deg. C warmer, the amount of moisture available, the precipitable water will be higher with respect to the 2nd event.
I was not even stating that the increase in CO2 caused the warmer environment(though I believe it likely caused some of it).
Do you wonder why it rains more and at greater rates in the tropics?
This one seems like a no brainer to me.

“In the past 8 decades of my life, this is about the fourth heavy rain event associated with an El Nino and it is neither quantitatively nor qualitatively different from those of earlier times”
Your memory is probably good on this one but since it is limited to 4 heavy rain events over the course of 80 years, I would not use that as solid evidence to make a conclusion about thousands of heavy rain events world wide during the past 80 years.
My statements are based on the meteorology of this type of weather event. Though I believe that increasing temperatures more in the higher latitudes has and will decrease extreme weather events, those that do occur similar to this one, with a warmer atmosphere and/or warmer ocean are capable of producing heavier rains because of the additional moisture that is potentially available.

Pat Michaels,
This is an outstanding article. Thanks for that and I agree with everything in the article.
With regards to heavy down pours. I believe you on TX rainfall that showed no change as of your 2004 paper related to this.
However,
I am using a basic principle of meteorology and something every operational meteorologist uses when forecasting rain amounts. Amongst other things, we look at the total precipitable water in the column of air in the air mass surrounding the weather system and available for it to use.http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
If the temperature of an air mass is warmed slightly, the moisture holding capacity of that air mass is higher. This is based on rock solid science.
The is not saying anything with regards to the frequency of weather system or the pattern that led to the extreme rains in the Southern Plains or even the intensity of anything else……….except for the higher potential for heavier rains as you warm the environment up.
Under a global warming scenario, even if you disagree over whether there will be global warming, heavy downpours and high end flooding events would increase.
The slight beneficial warming that did occur last century left us with an atmosphere that today, continues to hold a bit more moisture than it did 100 years ago.
I’m puzzled about why this seems so hard to accept.

Mike:
what exactly is a “superstorm”?
its not a hurricane, its weaker than that……
Answer: its a tropical storm, one that hits the east coast of the United States at high tide right where idiots built half million dollar homes, insured by the government at subsidized rates, on top of spits of sand called barrier islands, so called that because they forma barrier between….wat for it…wait for it…
the sea and the continent.

David…,
“Superstorm” sandy was so destructive to the Jersey coast because it hit on top of a long lingering Northeast storm that already had caused flooding throughout the coast. Also the NE storm tended to block the Northern progress of Sandy further extending the period of high winds that piled more and more water toward the coast, It was not a hurricane when it made landfall in New Jersey but it was destructive because of the confluence of two events.
The impact effect was also significant well inland of the barrier islands because all the back bays and rivers were already flooded and homes built many decades earlier that never flooded were exposed to flooding. Many of the multi million dollar homes on the barrier islands did not sustain damage (except to garages) because they were already built up on piling while the older smaller homes were not. There were lots of low cost homes impacted.
Some areas on the mainland were impacted because of significant breaches of the barrier islands which exposed mainland homes to water levels never previously experienced.
It was not as simple as many would have you believe.

“You will say in a typical comment many sensible things and many true things about human CO2, then toss in a little bit of AGW speculation. A big bunch of truth with a little bit of false information included. Why?
Janice”
It was late and I didn’t have a chance to completely answer your question. This question of yours relates only to the difference between what you believe is truth regarding CO2 and AGW vs what I believe.
You are asking me why I agree with you on many things, which is defined as “truth” by you, then include false information, which is interpreted as such because it does not line up with your belief system(belief system does not necessarily mean it can’t be rooted in scientific principles).
Based on previous discussions, you and I disagree about the physics of CO2. I believe that the increase has caused some warming. We also apparently disagree on whether a warmer global atmosphere, does/will have more moisture that does/will cause heavy rains events to be heavier rain events.
I could be way wrong about the physics of CO2 and how much warming the increase in CO2 has caused in the global atmosphere. My guess(which it is) is that doubling CO2 could have the effect of increasing the global temperature by another 1 deg. C…………….but I have been adjusting that downward gradually over the past 15 years. In 2000, I was guessing(which, as seen today, was just a wild guess) at least 2 deg. C if CO2 doubled. Ask me again in 15 years and probably it will be at least an educated guess……..maybe better.
On the meteorology/physics of warmer air masses holding more moisture, this is settled science. It’s possible to have scenario’s of a warmer planet that result in the development of fewer weather systems similar to the recent one that flooded TX/OK(I think otherwise) but the ones that do occur, will have the potential to hold more precipitable water and this will increase rain amounts in those systems.http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Precipitable_waterhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html

Catcracking,
You are pretty much correct on what you say about Superstorm Sandy. It merged with(got picked up by) a cold weather pattern -NAO, deep upper level trough/low in Southeast Canada/Northeast US.
This was not unprecedented, in fact a great example of a similar event occurred at a similar time frame, October, late in the hurricane season of 1954, when cat. 3 hurricane Hazel did exactly what Sandy did and for the same reasons.
Hurricane Sandy only hit a cat. 1 intensity at it’s peak but the difference between Sandy and Hazel did not really matter much shortly after landfall.
Why is 1954 important?
We were in a naturally produced global cooling pattern at the time and 2012 was almost 60 years later which had us in the same part of a repeating pattern.
1954 also featured 3 cat. 3 hurricanes that tracked in this general area in the course of just 3 months. Imagine if this had occurred in any year over the past decade, what we would have been told about the connection with climate change or global warming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season
1954 also featured a very unique Hurricane Alice that developed in late December and crossed the calendar year into January 1955.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alice_%28December_1954%29
Imagine what we would be told today, if the same thing happened. Fact is, it already happened when CO2 levels were not a factor from a natural cycle and during global cooling(from the natural cycle).
Could this have actually been the atmosphere’s way of balancing the heat disparity between the lower and higher latitudes that increases with global cooling and decreases(along with extreme weather decreasing) when we have global warming and a weaker meridional temperature gradient(when high latitudes warm the most)?

Here’s more on Hurricane Hazel that hit the East Coast in 1954 and was much like Superstorm Sandy in 2012 for the same meteorological reasons. With the increase in CO2 between those years having little effect……ok, you can make a case that a warmer atmosphere might have caused rains to be a bit heavier than they would have been in Sandy but but you can also make a case that the weaker meridional temperature gradient in 2012(warmer at high latitudes) meant less potential energy for Sandy vs Hazel.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
Regardless of what you can speculate wildly on, Hazel happened in 1954 and shows that Superstorm Sandy was not unprecedented.

However, excessive rain/flooding events like this one, are the one element that should increase in a warmer atmosphere.

A warmer atmosphere may or may not exacerbate said “excessive rain/flooding events” but it will not increase the chances of a similar one occurring ….. simply because the primary “driver” of said event was the position of the Jet Stream.

Mike McGuire
“If the temperature of an air mass is warmed slightly, the moisture holding capacity of that air mass is higher. This is based on rock solid science.”
You are missing an essential part of rock solid science with respect to ‘global warming’. The whole point of global warming is that the increased high temperature is accompanied by an increase in the low temperature. If both are increased 1 degree, no more water falls out of the column than it did before. Generally, if it is warmer in the daytime, it is warmer at night, which raises the dew point.
In other words the claim that ‘it will rain more’ is contingent on the low temperature not rising. And in further words, that the temperature of ‘everything’ doesn’t really rise, it is just a hotter ‘high’ on some days. That is not consistent with either observations or models.
In the tropics (which you mention further up) the sooner the moisture fills the air’s capacity to hold moisture, the sooner it clouds over shading the tropical oceans, cutting off hundreds of Watts/m^2. That is why the temperature in the tropical zone remains the same through all sorts of cycles in the higher and lower latitudes. Increasing the temperature adds additional moisture, which rises, and it clouds over ‘thicker’, which means more effective blocking of insolation.
The only significant change I expect to see from a generally higher temperature (a couple of degrees) is that it will start raining systematically in the Sahara again as it did pre 6000 BC. That only happens because of the dramatic day-night temperature drop which can wring the moisture out of the air, but would eventually be followed by normalisation, with a thunderstorm chain from Senegal to Egypt being established once again.
You may already be aware that the Sahel is invading the Southern Sahara at a rate of several km per year. That is because of the effect I describe. It has been proposed for decades that painting large areas of the Western Sahara black will stimulate the re-establishment of the thunderstorm chains.

“A warmer atmosphere may or may not exacerbate said “excessive rain/flooding events” but it will not increase the chances of a similar one occurring ….. simply because the primary “driver” of said event was the position of the Jet Stream”
This is probably right except that if the warmer atmosphere does exacerbate similar events because of additional moisture available, then you will also have slightly weaker events, that in the past would have caused a bit less rain that will now be able to achieve slightly greater rainfall intensities which shifts them into a category that previously could only be achieved by the stronger event.
The events of the strongest intensity(like this past one), regarding the position of the jet stream and all other elements being equal……..except loaded with a bit more moisture can dump even more rain.
This is just one factor to consider, while another, being that global warming has occurred more at higher latitudes may contribute to a WEAKER jet stream because the meridional temperature gradient is weaker. So the ability of the atmosphere to generate the synoptic scale features needed for extreme events to set up may be impaired with global warming.

Crispin,
Global warming has not effected daytime and night time temperatures equally as you suggest. Much more record high minimums have been set the past 2 decades then record high maximums. Also, more record low maximums vs record low minimums.
Temperatures at night have warmed more than temperatures during the day. This would be expected in a global atmosphere holding more moisture than it was in previous decades and consistent with my previous statements.
It would also be consistent with an atmosphere with more clouds too. There has been an decrease in the average cloud height in the last decade+. Clouds radiating from a lower level are warmer and will radiate more heat to space than higher clouds which would cause a negative feedback from increasing water vapor.
Global climate models amplify the warming using positive feedback from increasing water vapor so, at least with regards to low clouds/cloud height, they may have it backwards.
Increased (evapo)transpiration from the big increase in vegetation as a result of CO2 fertilization has also increased low level moisture across the planet. Global climate modelers are not plugged in to the extent of this element, so models are missing it.

This is probably right except that if the warmer atmosphere does exacerbate similar events because of additional moisture available, then you will also have slightly weaker events, that in the past would have caused a bit less rain that will now be able to achieve slightly greater rainfall intensities which shifts them into a category that previously could only be achieved by the stronger event.

Me thinks that was a tad bit of obfuscating to get everything to jive.
Your aforesaid “weaker event” verses “stronger event” is a product of Willis E’s “emergent phenomena” on a giant scale, … three (3) of which I have noted with boldface in the following quote regarding the “event” in question, to wit:

Did you note that a “warmer atmosphere” was not one (1) of said phenomena, nor was it even mentioned? And that is because it was not a relevant factor or criteria. Iffen it had been a “colder atmosphere” then the results would have been a Snow or Ice Storm of similar proportions.
Like happened during the Great Blizzard of 1888, to wit:

A five year running average throws away the data; ALL of the data, and replaces it with something false that was never observed or measured by any person or instrument at any time at any place.
So why would you want to do a five year running average on two sets of data; that’s just throwing away twice as much information.
Let’s stop with the statistics, and just report what the instruments measure.

Damned if I don’t really like the way you think.
Cause I agree, ….. get the science fiction out of the actual science.
Otherwise, actual, factual science will never recoup its “good name and reputation”.

Agreed, that clever individuals can make mistakes. That is why we use teams, bodies and organisations to reach a consensus, to decide the most likely and reasonable outcome of the data. That scientific consensus is known. What this site does is use dubious comments and graphs from individuals (such as those that cannot discern even the obvious truth) in an attempt to persuade scientifically untrained, uneducated and scientifically ignorant of that consensus. Even more amazing when so many reputable organisations have the data on their websites.

Here is why and how I think the climate may change. Part two is sent first followed by part 1.
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below I list my low average solar parameters criteria which I think will result in secondary effects being exerted upon the climatic system.
My biggest hurdle I think is not if these low average solar parameters would exert an influence upon the climate but rather will they be reached and if reached for how long a period of time?
I think each of the items I list , both primary and secondary effects due to solar variability if reached are more then enough to bring the global temperatures down by at least .5c in the coming years.
Even a .15 % decrease from just solar irradiance alone is going to bring the average global temperature down by .2c or so all other things being equal. That is 40% of the .5c drop I think can be attained. Never mind the contribution from everything else that is mentioned.
What I am going to do is look into research on sun like stars to try to get some sort of a gage as to how much possible variation might be inherent with the total solar irradiance of the sun. That said we know EUV light varies by much greater amounts, and within the spectrum of total solar irradiance some of it is in anti phase which mask total variability within the spectrum. It makes the total irradiance variation seem less then it is.
I also think the .1% variation that is so acceptable for TSI is on flimsy ground in that measurements for this item are not consistent and the history of measuring this item with instrumentation is just to short to draw these conclusions not to mention I know some sun like stars (which I am going to look into more) have much greater variability of .1%.
I think Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate regardless if , and that is my hurdle IF the solar variability is great enough in magnitude and duration of time. Sometimes solar variability acting in concert with factors setting the long term climatic trend while at other times acting in opposition.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Secondary Effects With Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity. A Brief Overview.
A Greater Meridional Atmospheric Circulation- due to less UV Light Lower Ozone in Lower Stratosphere.
Increase In Low Clouds- due to an increase in Galactic Cosmic Rays.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover- associated with a Meridional Atmospheric Circulation/an Increase In Clouds.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover probably resulting over time to a more Zonal Atmospheric Circulation. This Circulation increasing
the Aridity over the Ice Sheets eventually. Dust probably increasing into the atmosphere over time.
Increase in Volcanic Activity – Since 1600 AD, data shows 85 % approximately of all major Volcanic eruptions have been associated with Prolonged Solar Minimum Conditions. Data from the Space and Science Center headed by Dr. Casey.
Volcanic Activity -acting as a cooling agent for the climate,(SO2) and enhancing Aerosols possibly aiding in greater Cloud formation.
Decrease In Ocean Heat Content/Sea Surface Temperature -due to a decline in Visible Light and Near UV light.
This in turn should diminish the Greenhouse Gas Effect over time, while promoting a slow drying out of the atmosphere over time. This may be part of the reason why Aridity is very common with glacial periods.
In addition sea surface temperature distribution changes should come about ,which probably results in different oceanic current patterns.
The constant mistake in this field is trying to link a one cause and effect to the climate and thus a climatic outcome. It does not work that way . The climate is very complex and has to be looked at from all perspectives to see what may or may not occur with the climate.
This is the approach I have taken trying to tie all of the items that may effect the climate to one another in a process that when they phase, if the phase and degree of magnitude change and duration of time is sufficient enough the climate will gradually change until brought to a threshold at which point in time the climate will change abruptly due to a cascade effect of all these items that exert an influence on the climate phasing .
I also try to show the regulators of the climate on a very large scale those being Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field which set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items, and the secondary effects associated with this solar variability which give the phasing I am talking about in the above paragraph. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate, but how much will depend on the solar variability itself and where the regulators of the climate are at in the very large scale picture.
The approach often taken and this article is no exception is to simplistic in that it(they are ) is looking for a one cause /effect thus climate outcome as if all of what they mention is somehow in isolation and it does NOT work that way.
This is why I do not take these kind of articles seriously because they offer but one piece of the larger climate puzzle.
e
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
. My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is/ average global temperature) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.
The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.
The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.
QUESTIONS:
Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
.
Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness.

Dr. Svalgaard occasionally quotes Beer for Ice core GCR proxies, McCracken for 10Be records and Steinhilber for the millennial solar activity reconstruction.
About couple of years ago the Three Musketeers of the scientific word with Abreu- d’Artagnan have lost hold of their senses and written a heretic paperIs there a planetary influence on solar activity? J. A. Abreu1;2, , A. Ferriz-Mas3;4, K. G. 5, and F. Steinhilber2http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2012/12/aa19997-12.pdf
There are errors in the paper, one regarding data interpretation I have outlined here:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MS.htm

This is all just wishful thinking. There is no evidence that any of this is GOING to happen, e.g. TSI [which is measured VERY well since 2003] is at a high:http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003.png
Also contrary to the ill-fated ‘Notch’ nonsense.

Your link does not support any of your specific points of your opinion. What you think does not really count if not backed up with specifics, but just as the Climate Scientists you will probably never admits that you could be wrong, ever.

@ lsvalgaard
If I guess your point of view right, then you don’t believe that the sun’s changing activity (per cycle and/or per Grand Maxima and Minima) has any significant influence to Earth’s climate. Is that correct?
In addition, you seem to be somewhat (or at least mildly) critical about the main stream climate modeling by IPCC followers as well. Right?
If so, I’m somewhat curious to know, what your general opinion might be, regarding the discussions here in wuwt about the alleged man-made Global Warming. Are you, like Mr. Watts, a so called luke-warmer or have you got some personal ideas about the possible drivers of the climate?

The sun does have an influence on the climate, but it is minor. CO2 does have an influence too, but also minor [with the amounts we are putting out]. Internal fluctuations [e.g. of ocean circulation] may be the causes for changes on the scale of decades or centuries, while changes in the Earth’s orbit [mainly caused by Jupiter] are the cause of glaciations. Over billions of years, the Sun eventually becomes the dominant cause, but we don’t need to worry about that for now.

Mr West
quote:
“Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. ”
thus:
Ihttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTCa.gif

Bubba Cow hi
Re: 2009
No large sunspots, just few specs with tiny umbra (reducing TSI) and tiny penumbra(increasing TSI): few and small spots = small change in the TSI.
For the large TSI variability we need large spots with even larger penumbra.

Leif,
Is there some physical explanation for the graph above, seeming to have a low noise character, around the time of the minimum (2009) and it seems to get “noisier”, as the value increases. And I’m not comfortable in using the term “noise” in regard to what I presume is real observed signal variations.
g

Yes, there is a simple explanation: solar minimum.
TSI varies with the sunspot number. At sunspot maximum [about now] there are many spots and their number varies a lot from day to day, hence large scatter. At sunspot minimum [back in 2008-2009] there were only a few sunspots and their number did not vary much from day to day [being mostly zero], hence small scatter.
The scatter is not measurement ‘noise’, but real variation of the solar output.

Leif: “TSI is where the energy is”
So, if I want to grow plants inside its ok to use IR lamps as long as the wattage is enough?
Frequency matters! Although I doubt solar spectrum variation is a dominate player it has not been adequately investigated IMO and cannot be ruled out.
Here’s part of the problem: the GAST record is convoluted to the point where it is unsuitable for evaluating any such hypothesis with regard to multi-decadal cycles. Once the satellite record is long enough perhaps we can finally make some progress and figure out most of the variables and their relative importance.

So, if I want to grow plants inside its ok to use IR lamps as long as the wattage is enough?
As long as the light is green 🙂
If you want to heat the ground and the lower atmosphere IR will help a lot.
Don’t use UV for this. Plants won’t like it.

lsvalgaard June 1, 2015 at 12:40 pm
So, if I want to grow plants inside its ok to use IR lamps as long as the wattage is enough?
As long as the light is green 🙂
Green wouldn’t be much good for growing plants, that’s the wavelength range that isn’t used for photosynthesis, that’s why leaves are green.

Big Sal,
It seems to me that you have this entry saved and continually trot it out time and time again. You have made these pointa many, many times (not that I agree with it). Can you give us something else or is that all you got?

Salvatore,
My comment was simply that your posts are almost always the same thing. Why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over on different threads. Most of us who read this blog regularly already know your position so it seems silly to keep posting the same stuff unless you are specifically asked to.

I am certainly not the only one that does it.
The reason why I post it from time to time is because I want to be on the record of saying what I am saying so it can be seen if I was right or out in left field.

Scatter ! Thanks Leif, I think I will adopt that word if you don’t mind. Much better than “noise” to call such data. And thanks for the explanation. I guessed that some sort of solar “activity” (or inactivity) was involved.

They factored out every variable and ta da, co2 causes global warming. Nothing you can say or do will change the minds of the faithful. There is always an extreme weather event somewhere, and if there is 2 or more, that’s definite proof. It’s a merry go round. And if the Arctic isn’t ice free by 2013, then definitely by 2030, or maybe by the end of the century. Just as predicted, drought, no wait flooding, increasingly stronger and more frequent hurricanes, well no global warming hampers them, oh wait, nobody is going to know what snow will look like, no not that, more water vapor causes it to snow more. There definite proof.

Way back in 2006 I asked a Met Office employee how long the pause would have to be or how low would temperatures have to fall before they admitted their theories were wrong. ‘It would never happen, we’d just change our theories’ was the reply. Peer review = never having to say you’re wrong, you just got superseded.

Well, to be fair to them, science is always simply the best explanantion we have of something. So theories always change. That’s what sets it apart from the absurdity of religion. We can never be sure about something unless it’s fundamental (some say we can’t even be sure about science ‘truths’). Where the divergence is occuring is in an inability to change quickly enough. It’s becoming quite obvious that the models were woefully ridiculous (which scientist said something similar, Trenberth?), but scientists seem loath to admit they were wrong with haste. Many years ago they were wrong about plate tectonics, and stomach ulcers. But I think the day is getting close, that a ‘mainstream’ scientist will admit to the gross error that has occurred over projections of warming. And we all know that this error has happened because ‘they’ started speaking as if they understood the global climate system. We still don’t, and we’re decades from understanding it. That’s the trouble, we like to make out that we understand stuff. Just look at the complete bollocks that is talked of dark matter/energy. I’ve read up on it, and we haven’t a bloody clue!

Anyone who respects science has to be concerned about the baleful effect on society of the many who oppose it on false religious grounds, such as yourself.
Those, such as yourself, who without any relevant study, oppose geology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and other disciplines because of your religious beliefs especially do the climate skeptical community an extreme ill service by spouting your anti-scientific mumbo jumbo on a science blog.

But… this isn’t “science” it’s the religion of Global Warming. Science doesn’t make predictions they write a hypothesis and when the measurements don’t agree with the hypothesis it is discarded and replaced with a new one. The entire language surrounding Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever) is based on fear and persuasion (like a fanatical religion) not science.

Pray all you like, Janice. No one’s there! You’re wasting your life and your time. Very sad, really, when you think about it – which you don’t. The only things weighing on my mind is the health of my family, and those I love. I couldn’t give a monkey’s tits about ANYTHING else. I feels sorry for those among us who lack the ability to apply logic and rationale. Some of them go into politics, the rest look to the Church.

Ghost.
as a non believer in anything much up there, I am not so sure religion does nothing for people. While it can cause an awful lot of trouble (you could not find a better example of hate masquerading as religion here http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/home.html) but it also does a lot of good… Mother Theresa a fine example. People also get a lot of hope in the face of adversity from religion. I’m good with that. Doesn’t mean I have to believe though.

Simon, mate, are you serious? Mother freaking Teresa??? When you have time, try reading, ‘The Missionary Position’ by British author (and generally all-round brilliant bloke) Christopher Hitchins. But for starters, read this:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/
She was a terrible woman, and an incredible fraud. Only 7 percent of donations to her organization were used for charity. The rest was funneled into secret bank accounts or used to build more missions. She swanned around the world on jet airplanes taking her begging bowl and the nasty secret of her missions with her.
When anyone is thrust in the limelight as a do-gooder, look for the truth rather than the glossy excrement that they are covered in. Nelson Mandela was another one (but I don’t have the time to get into that). Just ask yourself what he really did for black people and for South Africa…nothing. The one-time head of a terrorist organisation which was responsible for thousands of deaths, he thought Communism would solve his country’s troubles! What’s South Africa like today? To say it’s a shambles is polite. His legacy is a country in social chaos. The average life expectancy is 56. It’s a cesspit of a country:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398136/end-south-africa-josh-gelernter
Sorry, I digress. But I get annoyed that people take things on face value, like Mother Teresa. Look beyond the veneer. Very often you see a completely diametrically-opposed story to what you are fed, Simon.

Ghost
South Africa is a whole lot more complex than one guy being able to fix it. Personally I think Nelson Mandela was one of the finest people of the 20th century and I’m sorry believe all the bollox you want about Mother T.

Well, to be fair to them, science is always simply the best explanantion we have of something. So theories always change. That’s what sets it apart from the absurdity of religion

…Because Christianity hasn’t changed since the time of Constantine?

Those, such as yourself, who without any relevant study, oppose geology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and other disciplines because of your religious beliefs especially do the climate skeptical community an extreme ill service by spouting your anti-scientific mumbo jumbo on a science blog.

I apparently missed the day when Janice or some other Christian opposed all this Science. You wouldn’t happen to have a link, would you? I’d hate to suspect it was just your own prejudice making you believe that all Christians are Flat Earth, Geo-Centric, Dinosaur Denying… Aah… Alchemist… er…
Shoot! I can’t actually think of any anti-Christian memes that cover that whole list. 0_0

Janice,
When The (probably unholy) Ghost alludes to the absurdity of religion, you take it as an invitation to get all personal.
There are only 24 hours in a day and one hell of a lot more people requiring your prayers than Mr. Ghost.
When you declare (again) that you are still praying for him (whatever that means), I surmise that you are either giving short shrift to many suffering souls or you’re engaging in a little opportunistic proselytizing.
Can’t you just pray quietly?

Personally I’ve always found it kind of funny that the first ones to bring up religion and start proselytizing are usually the diehard atheists. ^_^

This is because adherents to the religion of atheism are unsure of their faith because it is illogical. Atheists claim they have no faith but they believe there is no God.
That dichotomy inevitably provides a problem for their faith that there is no God, so they attempt to bolster their faith by promoting it to others.
It is also why agnostics tend to not attack religion: agnostics don’t have a faith so they cannot be unsure in their faith.
So, can we get back to the subject of the thread, please?
Richard

schitzree, I’m glad you find it amusing (genuinely), it’s good to smile. Yes, I’m a die-hard atheist, like Janice is a die-hard Christian. And yes, you have missed all the bits where Janice goes off on one (though even she doesn’t deny science – at least I don’t think so). It’s big world and there’s space for all our thoughts. But you’re wrong about proselytising. Atheists aren’t the ones going ’round people’s homes, knocking on their doors and asking nonsensical and puerile questions. In the reply, above, I merely stated that what sets science apart is that it continually moves forward, enhanced by ‘better’ knowledge. What you are missing is that religion has only moved forward very slightly, and ONLY EVER by being forced to. Even religious believers cannot, with any credulity, believe the absurd stuff once believed…and that’s only because science has shown how absurd that belief was. Have you heard about a guy called Copernicus? I’m disappointed that you evidently cannot see that, without science, religious belief would still be exactly the same as it always was. Many past scientists were religious believers, and their discoveries and growing intellect made them wrestle with their belief. You find few scientists today who are spiritual in comparison. Keep smiling at us atheists!

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
If the best you can do is pass me on to Austin Cline then you really are desperate!
The issue is simple. I will itemise it so even you can grasp it.
1.
Atheists BELIEVE there is no God. There is no possibility of evidence to prove their belief so that belief is a faith.
2.
Atheists claim to have no faith. That claim is illogical when they profess to the faith that there is no God.
3.
The disconnect between points 1 and 2 causes cognitive dissonance for atheists. That dissonance is why atheists try to bolster their faith by proselytizing at every opportunity.
4.
People with no faith (e.g. agnostics) or strong faith admit their faith and live their faith but don’t attack other faiths (e.g. atheism).
Richard

People with no faith (e.g. agnostics) or strong faith admit their faith and live their faith but don’t attack other faiths (e.g. atheism).

You have replied

Spanish Inquisition; Jihadist Islam, …

The Spanish Inquisition attacked dissenters from their own faith not other faiths.
Most Muslims don’t attack other faiths.
Jihadist Islam attacks all people – including Muslims – who don’t adhere to the peculiar beliefs of Jihadist Islam. Such attacks are indicative of people – such as atheists – who are trying to bolster their own lack of coherent faith.
I don’t know about “…”
The proselytizing of atheists is only of interest to atheists.
So, I repeat, please can we return to the subject of the thread?
Richard

The Spanish Inq. was created to suppress Jews and Muslims.
Apostasy is punishable by death under the Sharia code of Islam.
The 30-yrs war was a war between Protestants and Catholics [at the time considered different faiths].
So, yes, different faiths attack each other.

richardscourteney asks “So, can we get back to the subject of the thread, please?”
But he only wants to do so if he has the last word.
A pretty silly word at that!
His version; “Atheists BELIEVE there is no God.”
A more sensible version; “Atheists do not believe there is a God”.

And yes, you have missed all the bits where Janice goes off on one (though even she doesn’t deny science – at least I don’t think so).

So I missed all the times she did SOMETHING, but not the thing that we were actually talking about?
If you mean the times she’s defended her faith, then yes I have see that. What I haven’t seen her do often is attack the faith of others. In fact, I can only think of one instance were she brought up her beliefs in a way I would call inappropriate, in one of Willis’s threads. There is a difference between attacking and defending. It usually involves who shot first (unless you’re Han).
Also, you seem to have a odd view of how both religion and science change and adapt to new developments. Both have had many instances where new idea’s were fought tooth and claw, and both have seen times when change whipped through like a whirlwind. The Ideas instigated by someone like Luther or Wesley were no less revolutionary for there time then those of Newton or Galileo.
As to the idea that those who have faith in a religion are somehow less able to adapt or seek out new ideas then those who reject and ridicule them, most of the great scientists throughout history have been believer of one religion or another (Christians significantly, though that may simply be an artifact of European socioeconomic dominance). In fact, the idea that religious faith somehow prohibited scientific curiosity and development only really took hold during the 19th century (probably not coincidentally along with the rise of socialism/communism). It’s an idea that not only doesn’t hold up to examination, but is usually promoted by those who feel they have a stake in the reduction of religion, IE those with an alternative social group to promote like communism, environmentalism, atheism, ect.
And yes, I do find it humorous. Mostly I just like to poke a bit of fun at those that are sure THEIR deep seated belief is somehow the product of scientific fact. Like the CAGW Alarmist.

The issue is simple. I will itemise it so even you can grasp it.
1. Atheists BELIEVE there is no God. There is no possibility of evidence to prove their belief so that belief is a faith.

And your “God belief” has bestowed upon you the ultimate power to tell other people what they believe, ….. HUH.
HA, it don’t never get much sillier that that.
Iffen you stated it correctly, …. that “Atheists do not BELIEVE there is a God” …. then your argument becomes bankrupt and without any merit whatsoever.
Bible believing Creationists and God fanatics are habitual at telling others …… what those others are supposedly thinking …. and then they start with their “badmouthing” of said others for what they just accused them of thinking.
Why is it that the science learned will flat out tell you that ….. “You can not prove a negative”, …… yet when their nurtured Religious beliefs take conscious control of their emotional decision making they do just the opposite …… and badmouth the non-God believer for their inability to ….. “prove a negative”.
Too much Religious “beliefs” will rot your mind, ….. resulting in an untreatable mental problem.

Richard, why is passing you onto Austin Cline “desperate”?!? He explains it much better than I can, and I find you extremely tiresome, as you fail to grasp very simple concepts. The fact that atheism is NOT a faith is completely lost on you, and that’s typical. It is a complete nonsense to say atheism is a faith, and you cannot see where you are going wrong! So why should I bother giving up part of my Saturday on the likes of someone like you? You don’t need to read up more than you do, you just need to grasp it! Try understanding Austin Cline’s piece on why atheism isn’t a faith.

schitzree, read the posts again, I didn’t attack Janice, she ‘attacked’ me! Then you went and got your little knickers all in a twist by failing to read that. I never said AT ANY POINT that Janice denied science! Like many others (on this forum, and others) you read things that aren’t there. That’s why Willis makes a point of ending his pieces with ‘talk about what I said, not what I didn’t say’. I find it odd that you construct (at 9.29) an argument that isn’t there! What bizarre behaviour? She didn’t “defend her faith” at all. She couldn’t help chiming in with her religious nonsense about praying. If we discuss something, schitzree, please keep to what has been actually said, and not what is said in your mind. The rest of your post is meaningless, as it’s both known to us both, or worthless words.

You’re absolutely right. I’ve never once had a Atheist come to my door and try to ask me questions. Instead I’ve had them come to my school and demand that our Bible study group not be allowed to use school locations or resources (the sports clubs, jobworks program, drama club, Latin society, chess club, computer club, LGBT support group and the anime club were of course fine <¿¿<

Oh Oh Oh, let me play to! “Theists do not BELIEVE there is no God”
Or hey, this one’s even better “Pastafarians BELIEVE they do not BELIEVE their God is no God”

Bible believing Creationists and God fanatics are habitual at telling others …… what those others are supposedly thinking …. and then they start with their “badmouthing” of said others for what they just accused them of thinking.
Why is it that the science learned will flat out tell you that ….. “You can not prove a negative”, …… yet when their nurtured Religious beliefs take conscious control of their emotional decision making they do just the opposite …… and badmouth the non-God believer for their inability to ….. “prove a negative”.

(Blink blink) O¿O
Sooo, you can’t prove a negative, and Theists expecting Atheists to prove God doesn’t exist is the same as expecting you to prove a negative, and your inability to prove God doesn’t exist proves your belief that God doesn’t exist isn’t a belief, because it’s “badmouthing” to say that believing something you can’t prove is a belief.
That’s apparently what your trying to say. I guess. Or something. Anyway, thanks for joining our little theological discussion. You’ve help make it fun again for me. ^¿^

Simon, to know about Mother Teresa, The Missionary Position is required reading.
See also, Christopher Hitchen’s youtube expose here. Mother Teresa died with many million$ in the bank, while the seriously ill and and dying languished without anesthetics on wooden pallets in her wards.

schitzree, read the posts again, I didn’t attack Janice, she ‘attacked’ me! Then you went and got your little knickers all in a twist by failing to read that.

Ghost, maybe YOU need to go back and read the posts again. YOU started this whole thing when you posted about ” the absurdity of religion.” And Janice responded with ” for a man who thinks religion is a waste of time, you sure do bring it up an awful lot.” And you do. You make these little anti-religion sniper attacks all the time, and you’re apparently so blinded by your own intolerance that you don’t even understand why someone else might object to them. You just claim anyone who does respond is attacking you.
You don’t get to throw the first meatball and then claim the food fight was you ‘defending yourself’.

I never said AT ANY POINT that Janice denied science! Like many others (on this forum, and others) you read things that aren’t there.

I know you didn’t say Janice denied science. sturgishooper did. That’s why I quoted him.I have no idea why you thought you needed to defend that statement, or why you tried by saying I ” missed all the bits where Janice goes off on one”. I even pointed this out in my next post when I said ” So I missed all the times she did SOMETHING, but not the thing that we were actually talking about?”
You claim I ‘read things that aren’t there’. The truth is, you didn’t read things that are.

I find it odd that you construct (at 9.29) an argument that isn’t there! What bizarre behaviour? She didn’t “defend her faith” at all. She couldn’t help chiming in with her religious nonsense about praying.

She certainly did. And from the tone in that post I’d say she knew it’d get your goat. If it makes you feel any better I am NOT praying for you. Not being nasty, my specific religion doesn’t believe praying for someone that would reject that prayer if they knew about it is beneficial, as that would only drive them further away. Not that it comes up very often. Usually only with the most militant Atheists and those who believe in Christianity but see it as opposing their religion.
And I don’t doubt you find the argument from my 9:29 post ‘odd’ or ‘bizarre’ compared to this post of Janice’s, it had nothing to do with it. Again, the 9:29 post was about your claim that I had “missed all the bits where Janice goes off on one”. Since these ‘missed bits’ weren’t the examples of denied science that my previous post was actually about, AND the weren’t (according to you here) the times I’ve seen her defend her faith from one of your sniper attacks, AND you seem to think it relates to her first post in this thread derailment, I can only conclude that what you mean by ‘goes off on one’ is ‘she got my goat again’. Which I’ll admit she does fairly often as well, so still not something I’ve missed.

If we discuss something, schitzree, please keep to what has been actually said, and not what is said in your mind. The rest of your post is meaningless, as it’s both known to us both, or worthless words.

As Willis says, I’ve tried to quote you own words from previous posts, as well as my own and those of others I’ve referred to, as I’ve done in my previous posts. Unfortunately I have no real hope that you will not find this post also meaningless or worthless words, as I’ve come to the conclusion that you ether have some impairment that prevents you from following an argument from one post to another, or that you are being dishonest with me or yourself. I find the latter likely as militant Atheism is an inherently dishonest religion, that requires total belief that one doesn’t believe something and absolute faith that what you can’t prove doesn’t exist not only isn’t there, but couldn’t be.

mebbe and Samuel C Cogar:
Atheists are NOT agnostics.
Atheists believe there is no God. The unprovable belief is a faith.
Deists believe there is a God. The unprovable belief is a faith.
Your rantings demonstrate the cognitive dissonance that causes atheists to proselityze at every opportunity.
And Samuel C Cogar, as for religion “rotting my mind”, exposure to too much atheism has rotted your mind: I will pray for you.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley:
Passing me on to Cline must be desperation because if his lunacy is “better than you can do” then you would be well advised to do nothing.
And, to answer your question, you spent “some of your Saturday” trying to sell me Cline’s sophistry because atheists proselityze at every opportunity.
lsvalgaard
I said

People with no faith (e.g. agnostics) or strong faith admit their faith and live their faith but don’t attack other faiths (e.g. atheism).

That is my opinion and I have yet to see anything to change it.
Your opinion differs because – clearly – you do not agree with me as to what is and what is not “strong faith”.
I see no possibility of either of us changing our opinions and I see nothing that could be gained by discussion of our disagreement.And this response to each of you demonstrates that nothing is being – or could be – gained by this off-topic conversation. I yet again request that the thread returns to its subject.
Richard

You started the O/T sub-thread, and with your latest comment continued to be O/T. Had you followed your own request, you should not even have responded. I have yet to see anything to change it.
There are nobody as blind as he who refuses to see.
Follow your own request and refrain from further comment.

You started the O/T sub-thread, and with your latest comment continued to be O?T.

Technically either Ghost or Janice started this sub, depending on whether you believe Ghosts assertion that he’s just an innocent victim of prayer attacks made for no reason. And it is getting pretty long. But there are plenty of other subs in this thread, and newer threads. We all wouldn’t still be here if we didn’t care.

And Samuel C Cogar, as for religion “rotting my mind”, exposure to too much atheism has rotted your mind: I will pray for you.

richardscourtney,
Now I appreciate the thought, …. but, ….. I am sure there are far more other things that could benefit from your direct attention or intervention …. than would your wasted time and energy expended on “praying for me” …. or anyone else for that matter.

Shitzree,
Janice does oppose science. She opposes biology, chemistry, medicine, paleontology, anthropology and geology by d*nying the fact of evolution.
As a creationist, she may or may not also oppose astronomy and physics, but I don’t know if she’s a Young or Old Earth creationist.

‘It would never happen, we’d just change our theories’ was the reply.
I have absolutely no problem with science adjusting over time to better fit the facts. That is the way it is supposed to work.
The problem is with the Al Gores and activists of the world who say the “science is settled”. If you don’t accept the “settled science” you are an apostate and must be treated like a racist by polite society. That is the alarming part, not scientists quietly changing their minds.
In short, there are really only two legitimate options for the AGW crowd.
– Climate Science is settled. That means that the current theory is falsified and those preaching the standard model are simply wrong (refer to graph).
– Climate science is changing all the time. That means skeptics have been correct, and should be treated with respect, not targeted as “deniers”.

lsvalgaard
I did NOT start this OT thread.
Every post I have made in this thread – including the first and including this one – has been a reply to other posts(s).
Indeed, I said I saw nothing to be gained from dispute of our different opinions as to what is “strong faith”. And you suggest nothing that could be gained but you make a snark in an attempt to excuse your call for further proselityzing by atheists to be unopposed in this thread.
I commend you to read the excellent final paragraph by schitzree in his/her most recent post. Indeed, although addressed to someone else, all of the points in that post are applicable to your posts to me. So, I commend everybody to ignore your call for further proselityzing by atheists to be unopposed in this thread, and I yet again ask for the thread to return to its subject.
Richard

So you are the worst offender, keeping the O/T alive with incessant replies, and you didn’t even follow your own request to refrain from further comments. This just smacks more of an Ego-trip than a serious conversation.

lsvalgaard
Nope. You are the worst offender, keeping the O/T alive with incessant personal abuse but nothing of substance, thus – yet again – demonstrating another of your frequent Ego-trips instead of serious conversation.
See, you are not being clever, anybody can do it. Stop it.
Richard

lsvalgaard
Yes, Lief, everybody knows you think you are exempt from any call for you to stop your frequent ego trips.
And please note how I have deliberatety accepted your ‘red herring’ that has set this thread on another OT direction.
I accepted your stinking fish to make clear to all that you are trolling.
Please only reply if you have something substantive to say other than you think you are clever.
Richard

See, you just can’t abide by your own request. That is what an Ego-trip does to you.
I, on the other hand is not bound to any such request, and I showed you that adherents to faiths [specially when ‘strong’ – whatever that means] attack other faiths with abandon.

Get ready for -THE WALL OF TEXT-
You do not understand what an atheist is.ENLIGHTEN US, OH PURVEYOR OF TRUTH 😉
But srsly, there are a few ways to look at faith, or lack there of, towards a creator. here’s my view of Atheism.
If you want to talk pure rationalism, then clearly the only truly supportable position is Agnostic. The existence or non-existence of a creator has never been conclusively proven, and probably can’t be. Sometimes the only answer to a question is ‘we don’t know’. All other positions then become ones of inference based on historic beliefs, probability, or lack of evidence.
And the case for Rational Atheism can be easily made. Russell’s Teapot, The burden of proof is on the one making an unlikely claim (heck, it’s even on the one making a LIKELY claim). I have no reasonable reason to expect you to accept the existence of a creator that I have no proof for. I can only provide my own incidental and subjective experiences and the historical evidence of belief in my religion. And I personally stand by your right to decide for yourself whether it’s convincing.
But that brings us to Belief, and the nature of the Default Position. Many Atheist insist that Atheism isn’t a belief, and that not believing in a creator is the Default Position that all other Beliefs move you away from. Now some would argue that historically the default position has been belief in a creator and that even today more people do then don’t, but this is really immaterial. The only true Default Position is the blank slate of infancy, all else is subjective. So Belief really arises from Knowledge, or the lack there of, and almost all expressions of Knowledge are Beliefs. To prove this statement I present: The Tooth Fairy
I’m willing to bet that the majority here do not believe in The Tooth Fairy. 🙂 And yet nobody here probably Identifies themselves as Afairyeist, despite the fact that a good many of us probably DID believe in her earlier in our lives. But we gained evidence as we grew up that this belief was false. So does that mean that not believing in the Tooth Fairy is a belief? Actually, IT DOES! As has been pointed out here before, you can’t prove a negative, only collect evidence that supports an alternate theory. And while all the evidence supporting the Theory that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist makes not believing in her a rational belief, it is STILL a belief.
Now, the evidence for the non-existence of God (more accurately, for the theory that the Universe didn’t have a creator and arose in some other fashion) is nowhere near as convincing as the evidence against the Tooth Fairy, but a rational argument CAN be made for it. In fact, if I’m going to be honest, The arguments AGAINST God existing are probably more rational then the ones FOR him existing, at least for a God as envisioned in Western Religion. Atheism is therefor a rational belief. And personally I have no problem with someone expressing a belief in Atheism, or even ‘proselytizing’ or wanting to argue the merits of that belief. As you can probably tell I enjoy a good Theology debate, even an Interfaith one. ^_^
My Problem is with Militant Atheists like Ghost, Samuel, and others above. They clearly believes that the evidence Supporting God is weaker then the alternative, and therefor do not believe in him. And as I’ve said I support their right to believe this. I have no Proof of God, only my own Belief. But then they turn the argument around and insist I prove the negative of their belief to validate my own belief. They insist my belief in God is ‘Absurd’, ‘Fanatical’, ‘Nonsense’, ‘Silly’, ‘An untreatable mental problem’, and worse. Not that they restrict this kind of things to theological discussions, they feel a need to ‘Put God to the Question’ at every opportunity.
And frankly, I’ve dealt with Militant Atheists before, and have gotten tired of their one sided demands. They are always demanding restrictions on religions, but expect their demands to not apply to themselves. Richard’s right that Militant Atheist are always proselytizing, but they also demand that they never even HEAR of an other religion doing so. They demand that Creationism or even the mention of God be banned from all schools, then turn around and preach to our children in those very schools about all the ‘False’ things that their parents believe, and what the ‘Truth’ is. They insist on a ‘separation of church and state’ that amounts to state sponsored Atheism in democratic nations, and just outlaw religion in the communist and despotic nations they get control of.
And if you really believe that Militant Atheism isn’t a Religion, just look at some of the responses posted above. Ghost thinks getting prayed at or even about is offensive, and this is a common outlook around them. But it isn’t rational of someone who simply doesn’t believe in God. If a Rational Atheist who has injured their back hears that a coworker is “praying for their health” they aren’t going to get angry, anymore then they would at their daughter for sending a letter to Santa saying all she wants for Christmas is for Daddy to get better. To a Rational Atheist this would just be a well meaning though ineffective action. But a Militant Atheist will often get angry at the ‘wasted time and effort’ involved. In fact, they respond to almost all examples of religion in any form with anger, when the rational response would be indifference.
The question is Why. Why WOULD someone spend so much time and effort fighting against something they claim is just a false belief in something that can’t be proven or disproven? Is it really just because of the time and effort they believe is being wasted on religion? A lot of people believe that Lawn Gnomes are cute decorations. I think they are hideous at best and creepy at worst (yes, I consider hideous to be better then creepy. A mutilated corpse is hideous. A WALKING corpse is creepy). But I don’t get angry about Lawn Gnomes. I don’t try to get Lawn Gnomes banned from my neighborhood. I don’t make long You-tube videos explaining all the things wrong with Lawn Gnomes. I certainly don’t throw around comments about how ‘absurd’ or ‘a waste of time’ Lawn Gnomes are in a quarter of my comments on random blogs, especially on ones where I know some Lawn Gnome fans also comment. So why do Atheist do these kinds of thing?
Unfortunately we have another example of groups that act like this. Intolerant Religions. To an Intolerant Religion those who believe something different then themselves aren’t just wrong, they are Opposition, because to believe what they do about God, they must also believe that YOU are wrong. So any time an Intolerant Religion finds itself in a position of dominance over what they consider opposing religions they will attempted to suppress them. But even many of the most intolerant of religions are tempered by the knowledge that they ARE religions, and therefor wouldn’t promote restrictions on others that they might one day find applied to themselves. But Militant Atheist believe they will be forever exempt from the demands they make on everyone else.
This is why I don’t consider Rational Atheism and Militant Atheism to be the same, or even very similar, religions. A Rational Atheist is simply one who feels the likelihood of there being a creator is outweighed by the likelihood that there isn’t, and chooses to believe that it doesn’t exist. So they are willing to acknowledge that this is what they believe without definitive proof, even if they might not be willing to admit that as a belief Atheism is a religion. But a Militant Atheist believes that there CAN’T be a creator, that it is somehow a Default Position that never needed to be proven first, and that all beliefs different then this are false UNLESS they can somehow prove the existence of God. They believe that since all religions have beliefs that differ from this Default Position, that having belief ITSELF is in opposition to their truth, and that their truth is not a belief. And that since belief is in opposition to their truth, all Religions are in opposition to them and must be fought against at any opportunity.
Or to put it another way, a Rational Atheist believes Russell’s Teapot Isn’t out there, can probably explain why they think so while admitting they can’t prove it, and might even think you’re a bit daft for believing in the thing. But a Militant Atheist believes it CAN’T be out there, will insist that it’s unreasonable to believe it’s even possible there’s a Teapot, will demand that you not bring up your ridiculous Teapot in their presence, will insure that any institution they can influence bans all mention of the Teapot, and, at least once a day, find some reason to complain about Teapotism.
And for good measure, He’ll outlaw teapots, before some damn fool manages to launch one into space. ^_^

schitzree:
Thankyou for your excellent “wall of text”.
lsvalgaard:
This is a test. I predict that your egotism will prevent you from ignoring this reply to your nonsense.
You say to me

See, you just can’t abide by your own request. That is what an Ego-trip does to you.
I, on the other hand is not bound to any such request, and I showed you that adherents to faiths [specially when ‘strong’ – whatever that means] attack other faiths with abandon.

Your egotism, arrogance and stupidity combine to prevent you from recognising that I am “bound” by your request that I don’t answer your offensive posts to exactly the same degree that you are bound by my request that the discussion cease.
I said our opinions differ and you say your assertion is right, and you attempt to incite response by adding the untrue claim that you had “showed” your assertion.
I am content for others to assess the matter for themselves.
And I predict that you will stamp your foot by writing another pointless missive saying you are right because anyone who disagrees with you is on an ego trip (which is a classic example of psychological projection).
harrytwinotter:
I am replying as a courtesy.
I do understand what atheism is. I commend you to read the excellent “wall of text” from schitzree. It provides the definitive word on the matter.
Richard

that you are bound by my request that the discussion cease.
I am not bound by anything, but you are [although you ignore that]. But in one thing you are correct: the ‘discussion’ has reached the point of being pointless [it actually was from the beginning].

richardcourtney
“harrytwinotter:
I am replying as a courtesy.
I do understand what atheism is. I commend you to read the excellent “wall of text” from schitzree. It provides the definitive word on the matter.”
No you are just wrong, “Your egotism, arrogance and stupidity combine to prevent you from recognising” that you are just wrong. And while you are thinking about this, look up “argument from ignorance”.

harrytwinotter:
Yes, I certainly do understand what atheism is. As I said above to mebbe and Samuel C Cogar:

Atheists are NOT agnostics.
Atheists believe there is no God. The unprovable belief is a faith.
Deists believe there is a God. The unprovable belief is a faith.
Your rantings demonstrate the cognitive dissonance that causes atheists to proselityze at every opportunity.

And as I said to you

I do understand what atheism is. I commend you to read the excellent “wall of text” from schitzree. It provides the definitive word on the matter.

I note that you failed to answer his request to you; viz.

You do not understand what an atheist is.
ENLIGHTEN US, OH PURVEYOR OF TRUTH 😉

So, I again suggest that you read the excellent “wall of text” from schitzree because it may reduce your assertions from ignorance.
Richard

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?
————
Uh, never.
No disgraced doomsayer does. Paul Erlich hasn’t and is still held in high regard by the warmunists and the malthusians.
At some time it may be said of climate science that, well, there may have been some minor miscalculations, but the important thing is that public consciousness was raised.

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?
Those who work in ‘settled science’ where it is impossible for their work to ever be fairly criticized and whose ever claim must be treated has it comes straight from god , clearly cannot be wrong and therefore they will never have to say that they where .
Meanwhile in reality . poor BS artist they may be but their smart enough to know that years spent lying and using industrial levels of smoke and mirrors , means there is no way back for them . Then can only ‘double down ‘ in the hope that their bluff does not get called or that they will no longer be sitting at the table when it does . Can anyone one see Mann the rest of ‘the Team’ ever got a job in any other area given both their poor professional and personal profiles? Besides which let us be fair they have found themselves a very good way to get good money by the selling of ‘snake oil’
Climate ‘science’ is an area where honest and good science means little or nothing your ‘value ‘ is virtual all in how your work backs up CAGW , if that means lying , fiddling data , or a 101 other approaches that would be totally unacceptable in an other area of science, that only is that acceptable its rewarded.
So the short answer is , never , becasue they cannot afford to .

Wouldn’t it be fun if the next President, at his inaugural address in January 2017 says, “Since the science is settled on global warming there is no point in spending a single penny more on climate change research. Therefore my first executive order will be to reduce the NSF budget by several billion dollars and forbid any more grants for scientists studying climate change. All of you climatologists, your work is done. Go find another job.”

If these climate scientists really believe that C02 causes global warming, surely their time would be better spent trying to find ways to scrub Co2 from coal fired power stations, cars, planes etc.
They are rather like dumb firemen standing near a forest fire saying, ‘it’s settled, matches cause fires.” instead of trying to put out the fire.

“Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded”
With all due respect, this quote illustrates just how futile this whole exercise of climate “history” and “projection” really is. Since Pinatubo, Earth has undergone a microsecond of its history. There will be catastrophes worse than Pinatubo, and there already have. Tambora. Krakatau. Toba. Yellowstone. But what about the massive Columbia Plateau eruptions? Snake River Plain? Deccan Traps? Just to mention a few.
We are living in a quiescent millisecond. To tease and worry and fret and flail over what amounts to be a flat-lined temperature profile over a tiny 150-year period is to reveal just how blinded climate science really is. No principles, physical, chemical or moral. Zero. Zippity-do-dah in terms of meaty scientific things to hang one’s hat on.
Meanwhile the world of nature forges ahead, with no mind to humankind’s well-being; and humans themselves hurtle backward into a anti-evolutionary spiral of politically-correct lunacy which will surely lead to our demise…all in a period of time so dismally short as to barely be noticed. We will leave an interesting fossil record, that is about all.

It has to be ideology, insanity or ignorance. So-called climate scientists must know at least a little science, namely that present CO2 levels are far below average for the past four billion years or so. The periods in which CO2 concentration has been a little lower than now are few and far between, while intervals with much, much higher levels have been common. Atmospheric concentration has ranged from over about 320,000 ppm to under 200 ppm, which is near starvation level for most plants.
True, solar output has been lower in the past, but not by much. Over a billion years ago, it was still more than 90% of its present power. Colder climate leads to less CO2; warmer to more. CO2 levels are an effect of climate change, not a major cause.

I agree. We are puny little animals, just like the other animals that have come and gone. In fact, i think our ‘civilization’ is due to global warming, not causing it. By global warming i mean post glacial time frame. Some sunken cities look to be about 8-10 thousand years old (under 150 – 300 feet of water). Ancestors did not build the city there, the ice age ended, submerged those places and then humans spread away from the equator like bunnies in Australia. Our natural enemy is cold: that is the only thing that limits population growth in real terms.
Well, i suppose a democratic mayor and a disgruntled police force limits population too, but i digress…

The models can’t even accurately hindcast known temperatures, which isn’t even science it’s just curve fitting known data.
The track record of alarmist projections is utterly abysmal. If you go back to as early as 1965, the alarmists predicted that by the year 2000 CO2 levels would rise by 25%, air temps would rise 7 degrees, and sea levels would rise by 10 feet. CO2 levels actually went up slightly more than 25%, but the other predictions were absolute nonsense, they couldn’t be more wrong.
Today’s alarmists don’t even admit that the old predictions were wrong, instead they tout the long history of science underlying the radiative forcing of CO2 as if that’s a good thing. No, it’s not a good thing when the claim to have fully understood the mechanism for a century, to have calculated the magnitude of the effect to extreme precision with computers for more than 50 years, and have completely whiffed on every prediction they’ve ever made. That’s not supporting their position, it’s seriously undermining it.
If they won’t even admit they were wrong in the 1960’s (found in the Nixon presidential archives), 1970’s (global cooling), 1980’s (James Hansen w/ Scenarios A, B, C), or 1990’s (IPCC FAR temperature predictions now statistically falsified), why would they suddenly start admitting they were wrong now? They’ve lied for decades, why stop now?

I think that comparing actual observations to the average of 102 CMIP-5 models is disingenuous. After all, there are CMIP models that reflect low climate sensitivity, and these models could very well provide predictions more in-line with what has been observed over the last 18+ years of satellite observations.
Only time will tell if future observations will significantly diverge from predictions made using models that consider lower climate sensitivity.

Sorry, what?
So predictions have been made?
By these same purveyors of the average of their computer models?
Care to name these “predictions”?
Of course using the average of the 102 CMIP-5 models is disingenuous, that is why the UN IPCC Team has done so from their creation.
So which commuter model is the “right” one?

Did I miss the memo, Keg? Last I knew, the AGWer “scientists” had not thrown out all the models except the low-sensitivity ones. Did they do that?
IF not
THEN approx. 102 out of 104 models have NO SKILL
AND to stand by them is either foolish pride or cynical propaganda (done for Big Wind, et. al.’s cash).

Hey,
I don’t believe the crap being pushed by the warming enthusiast community. All I’m saying is that if you look at the spaghetti charts that show predictions from each of the CIMP-5 models, there are some at the lower end of the range that are far closer to the satellite and balloon observations. Taking the average of models is a technique used by NASA/GISS (and others)… it shouldn’t be an approach used by skeptics.

Keg, to me, statistically, it’s remarkable that there aren’t more models that at least stray into the correct range. I believe the fact there are only two that do, demonstrates that a biased hand has been heavily involved. If you took a hundred people at random among those not knowledgeable about weather or climate (hey I’m only trying to make the analogy as perfect as I can!) and asked them to guess how many days in the next hundred would be rainy. I dare say there would be more than two that came close to correct. This is not proof that the few have any skill whatsoever.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/20/do-climate-projections-have-any-physical-meaning/
Since most climate variables have a range of physical uncertainty, any given model would spit out a range of possible temperatures, depending on the values selected for the uncertain climate parameters being fed in.
In other words, every 102 CMIP-5 projection is itself a crapshoot. If the numbers chosen for the uncertain climate parameters fed into the model happen to offset other inaccuracies of the model, you might get a close approximation of the actual temperature measurements purely by coincidence.
This is why it is so important to try to falsify predictions, not try to prove them correct. If you take 102 model predictions, all of them use CO2 as the control knob for earth’s temperature, and only 2 of them are even in the ballpark of observations, that is pretty strong evidence that CO2 isn’t actually the climate control knob they thought it was.

Since 1980 the average of the predicted change has been off by, at least, a factor of 2. In 2015 the average of the models are off by a factor of 7.
That’s what happens when (incorrect) initial assumptions are used for models, AND the incorrect output is then utilized (compounded) into the future model output.
Only time will tell …. How much time?
Please recognize that as the time is extended, the costs are also compounded. How much direct taxpayer money during that time? And how much confiscated private resources during that time is reasonable?

Without reading down further:
I do think (I am nice like that) that KH meant this the way it cme out. I think he was saying that they CAN get closer models (if they “cherry pick”) so why don’t they?
Naivety may be more at play here, so don’t be too harsh.

Keghead,
The two model runs which vary the least from actual observations assume ECS of 2.1. All others are higher, up to 4.5.
Despite lowering its range to 1.5, IPCC doesn’t include simulations assuming ECS lower than 2.1. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if they dare to include them in future reports.
What they definitely cannot do however is get rid of all the clearly wrong ECSes above 3.0 or lower. That would bring the average of all the runs down into not scary at all territory.

Actually, Keghead’s argument reminds of when my kids were young and learning archery. They’d stand there firing dozens of arrows, all over the place, into the trees, into the ground, whatever. Finally they would put one right in the center of the target. YEA! All the other shots are forgotten. Dad! I hit the bulls-eye! I’m master of the universe!

“I think that comparing actual observations to the average of 102 CMIP-5 models is disingenuous”
Unless and until they throw out those models that are already falsified by the temperature record, no its not. They use this ensemble to make scary projections and claims.

All right, I almost posted an angry rant at John, Janice, and Big Jim, then went back and reread what Keghead wrote.
Keg, are you saying it’s disingenuous of US to compare the CMIP-5 model average to actual observations instead of the few that get close? Or are you saying it’s disingenuous of the IPCC and the Consensus Scientists to do that? It makes a pretty big difference in my interpretation of your post.
I assumed keghead meant the second, and that they need to go back and adjust their theory to fit the fact that the models with the lowest ECS were the ones to get closest to the actual Temps.

Keghead notes that a couple of spaghetti noodles are closer to the real meal deal than all the rest and he gets booed off the stage.
People marry their opinions on both sides of the aisle, apparently.
I assume the warmies don’t want to embrace the milder models because that means disavowing the exciting, scary ones.
Climate science is all about averages of averages of averages.

“All I’m saying is that if you look at the spaghetti charts that show predictions from each of the CIMP-5 models, there are some at the lower end of the range” If CAGW used those they wouldn’t be shouting about imminent doom, and that’s not the ones they refer to either. And the top end is really where the math takes you… ” just from co2 alone” . That is what they actually believe.

Keg head, the different RCP scenarios have different GHG concentrations far out into the future. For the most recent period and out another five years or so, they are all mostly using the current and historical concentrations.
So, it is valid to use all the model forecasts if you are just comparing temps to date to the predictions.
And, yes there really is only models that are close right now. At least one of these just has huge variability that lasts several years at a time and that variability is at a low point right now. In about 3 years, it starts cycling on an up-cycle and it will be way off after that.

We need to show them they are wrong, we need to inform the public temps haven’t risen for 18 yrs and the Artic hasn’t melted away. I believe we need to fund an advertising campaign to counteract there b********t, blogs like this could get money in to fund small adverts in National papers which would eventually inform the public what is going on.When I tell people the temp’s haven’t risen they won’t believe you!

You are assuming that any media outlet would publish / broadcast the information. The MSM just won’t publish / broadcast anything that contradicts the meme. So, in addition to significant amounts of money, we need to find a way to get the information out, and get the low-information public to even care.

The MSM is in a world of hurt right now, financially. I suspect they would publish just about anything if paid enough, with the exception of a cartoon of Mohammed, if it included a disclaimer that it didn’t reflect the views of the publisher.

Newspapers/media are struggling to survive so have been accepting submitted accounts opposed to doing their own journalistic work. This invites anyone with an agenda and connections to dictate what consumers read. We don’t need to go down that rough rutted road. Polls show people still look at a thermometer consequently global warming has fallen below wheat price index, in respect to concern, which effects the cost of beer.

“Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded.”
That doesn’t seem to necessarily follow at all. If you make false assumptions then you will likely arrive at false conclusions.

This is a crime against science. At least since the IPCC FAR, there is no justification for them to move up the forecast past 1990 and tune their models against any later observations, certainly not through 2005.
Even under the alarmist viewpoint, the impact of CO2 is small and takes many years/decades to manifest itself above natural climate variation. If we forced them to go back and project out from 1990 onward, MAYBE enough time would have passed by now for the models to actually be tested and falsified. If they keep moving up the tuning, the models can NEVER be tested or falsified.
The scientific method is based on falsifying wrong hypotheses. You can never prove something to be true. Thus, efforts to push off our ability to actually test or falsify the global warming hypothesis or these models is a crime against science and the scientific method.

KTM writes: “The scientific method is based on falsifying wrong hypotheses.”
Let me try to falsify that by demonstrating that more than one scientific method exists.
One view in the philosophy of science is that science can only disprove. In that view, originating in Hume’s attack on inductive knowledge, and systematized in the twentieth century by Carl Popper, inductive “proof” is impossible because “proof” is a term of logic and not of science. In other words, they insist of a definition of proof that makes real-world (as opposed to logic-world) knowledge impossible. But the world of facts, while not as neat as the world of logic, is also knowable in that actual causes many be found for well-specified classes of events.
Popperian falsificationism, while useful, has epistemological problems of its own and support for traditional inductive verificationism is by no means dead. In practical terms, inductive generalizations may be proven by complete enumeration — examining every case, and may be relied on to very high degrees of probability — virtual certainty — in cases where experiments may be reliably controlled to isolate every causal factor with even the remotest possible effect. Is it possible to miss a possible factor and fail to control for it? Of course, but it’s equally possible for what looks like a falsifying observation to miss factors that would falsify the falsification. Contextual or “Aristotelian” certainty (knowledge of what is true “always or for the most part”) — where systematic and thorough inductive investigations lead to very high probabilities — is available wherever honest and careful science is done. Perfect or “Platonic” certainty (the knowledge of the “Guardians” who have direct access to the eternal Forms) — not so much.
Popperian falsificationism, with only “That’s wrong!” as its contribution to our understanding of the world, is simply inadequate. On the other hand, demanding that those claiming knowledge specify what observation would falsify that claim remains a damn good test of its scientific seriousness.

RalphB’s limitations on the scope of Popperian falsification are more theoretical than real. It is possible to falsify hypotheses reached or defined inductively, for instance. And there are three possible outcomes of the falsification process, not one: demonstration that the hypothesis is true (rarely); demonstration that it is false (less rarely); and modification of the original general problem addressed by the hypothesis to the extent that the hypothesis has survived falsification without yet being disproven. That’s right, that’s wrong, and dunno yet.

Monkton of Brenchley seems to think I incorrectly limit the scope of Popperian falsification theory. He says, “It is possible to falsify hypotheses reached or defined inductively, for instance.” And he mentions three possible outcomes to the falsification process.
Nothing I said could possible be construed as denying that claim that it is possible to falsify hypotheses reached or defined inductively. My point was that falsification does not exhaust the fundamental tools of the scientific method. So we agree on outcome number one.
Outcome number two I’m not so sure about. It is that a (rare) possible outcome of the (Popperian) falsification process is a demonstration that the hypothesis is true. How does that work?
Certainly it can fail to demonstrate that the hypothesis is false. But while a failure to prove hypothesis false may constitute some evidence for it, it hardly constitutes a thorough demonstration of its truth, at least not in typical scientific investigations I know of.
Suppose the hypothesis is that water always and only boils when heated to the temperature of 212° F. If we test that hypothesis with a reliable thermometer and the water boils at 206° we have falsified the hypothesis and know with a high degree of confidence that water does not always and only boil when heated to 212°. Now suppose the falsification fails. We run the test over and over and the water always and only boils at 212°. I think you will agree that this hardly constitutes a demonstration of of the truth of the hypothesis, since we all know you must control for air pressure.
I realize that Monckton understands science so I think he may be speaking of cases that seem to me very rare indeed, perhaps hypotheses about unique cases or cases with clear factors in low numbers. Consider the hypothesis: “The plane is going to crash. We’re all going to die!” That would be falsified either by the plane not crashing or its crashing with at least one survivor. The failure of both falsifications constitutes proof of the original hypothesis. I can’t think of any such cases that are general enough or interesting enough to be issues of scientific knowledge, but there may be such.
Monckton’s third option is that the falsification fails in the ordinary way as in my failed boiling-point falsification. Then you can either say “I dunno, cause I don’t trust induction,” or you can say simply that the inductive conclusion was not falsified, so it must stand or fall on the quality of the design and execution of the inductive process — the systematic observations and/or experiments — as in noticing that the boiling point varies with altitude, knowing that air pressure varies with altitude, and designing new experiments that vary both pressure and altitude independently. (Maybe its not pressure but “altitude flux” or something).
For another third option example, the hypothesis that drug X is generally safe and effective would be falsified by sufficient numbers of serious side effects and deaths, or too few positive results for patients. But if not so falsified the hypothesis stands or falls on inductive experimental design and observation factors, for example: the size and demographics of the population, controlling for diet, lifestyle, other drugs taken, the nature of the observations that evaluate the patients’ conditions, whether the experiment was double-blind to rule out confirmation bias, and so on.
So my point is really not that Monckton or KTM will necessarily disagree with many of my points, but to show that scientific method cannot possibly be “based” on reductio ad absurdum — the logic of falsification, because the discovery of truth is the goal of science, not merely the refutation of untruth, and also to point out that traditional inductive verificationism has always and necessarily included falsification tests, long before Hume, Popper & Company tried and failed to unseat induction. Even the ancients knew the importance of falsification in logic, geometry, rhetoric, and even in testing knowledge based on observation and experiment. Look what this ancient scientist says of evaporated sea water:
“When it turns into vapour it becomes sweet, and the vapour does not form salt water when it condenses again. This I know by experiment.” Aristotle, Meteorology Bk. 2, 358b16.
Since he specifies that the condensate is not salty, he is saying that if it were salty, that would falsify the hypothesis that when salt water turns into vapor it become sweet. That is almost Monckton’s second option, in that the faliure to falsify is almost a demonstration that the hypothesis is true, except that we hear nothing of controlling for the experimental conditions, materials, etc., none of which are part of falsification but rather of the design of inductive experiments. (Does the salty condensate attach to the clay vessel? Would the salt condense had it been hotter or colder? And so on.) Incidentally that item (along with quite a few others) contradicts the oft-made claim that Aristotle’s science was strictly observational and the experimental method was unknown until the sixteenth century.
I would love to hear more about how (the failure of) falsification can demonstrate (rather than simply lend support to) the truth of an hypothesis — and whether such cases nullify my claim that science cannot be based on falsifying wrong hypotheses. I never denied that falsifiability is an essential test of hypotheses; in fact I said, “demanding that those claiming knowledge specify what observation would falsify that claim remains a damn good test of its scientific seriousness.”

RalphB
You make some thought-provoking points so your long post is worth reading.
However, I write to dispute your saying

So my point is really not that Monckton or KTM will necessarily disagree with many of my points, but to show that scientific method cannot possibly be “based” on reductio ad absurdum — the logic of falsification, because the discovery of truth is the goal of science, not merely the refutation of untruth, and also to point out that traditional inductive verificationism has always and necessarily included falsification tests, long before Hume, Popper & Company tried and failed to unseat induction

The “discovery of truth” is NOT the “goal of science”.
If the “discovery of truth” were the “goal of science” then scientific advance would cease when it was decided that ‘truth’ had been discovered.The “goal of science” is to seek the closest approximation to ‘truth’ indicated by comparison with empirical observations.
Indeed, this issue of ‘truth’ is the difference between science and psudosciencebold.Science seeks the closest approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking evidence which refutes existing understanding and then amending or replacing understanding to agree with all available evidence.Psudosciencebold decides something is ‘truth’ and seeks evidence which supports that something while ignoring or rejecting evidence which refutes the something (e.g. the empirical data must be wrong because it refutes the indications of our modeled understanding).
I hope this contribution helps the discussion.
Richard

richardscourtney writes:
“The ‘discovery of truth’ is NOT the ‘goal of science’.
“If the ‘discovery of truth’ were the ‘goal of science’ then scientific advance would cease when it was decided that ‘truth’ had been discovered.”
Then what is scientific “advance”, Richard, and how does one distinguish it from scientific “regression”? If the standard for the evaluation of scientific propositions is not their truth (Aristotle again: “to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”) then what is the standard of evaluation? Isn’t the entire project of falsificationism to say of what is not that it is not?
If you were to write, “The ‘discovery of Truth‘ is NOT the ‘goal of science’,” with the capitalization indicating some kind of Eternal Truth, I would agree. Remember what I wrote initially to KTM:
“Contextual or ‘Aristotelian’ certainty (knowledge of what is true ‘always or for the most part’) — where systematic and thorough inductive investigations lead to very high probabilities — is available wherever honest and careful science is done. Perfect or ‘Platonic’ certainty (the knowledge of the ‘Guardians’ who have direct access to the eternal Forms) — not so much.”
You say, “Science seeks the closest approximation to ‘truth’” — but that is quite impossible as one’s goal. You don’t seek the closest approximation to getting the ball through the hoop, you seek to get the ball through the hoop. Unless you make the honest attempt, “to say of what is that it is,” you will never know, “that is the closest I am able to get to saying of what is that it is”.
Unless we descend into worldwide totalitarianism we will not come to the point “when it was decided that ‘truth’ had been discovered.” Free minds question everything, even the truth.

If by “climate scientists” you mean a person who applies the scientific method to understanding the climate, I would answer all of those are referred to as “deniers” now, and any of them that initially supported catastrophic climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 have already admitted they were wrong.
If by “climate scientists” you mean the persons with university degrees but no apparent regard or understanding of the scientific method as it applies to the study of climate – they will never admit to being wrong, they will simple modify their message slightly to stay on agenda. This group is not interested in the “truth”, they are committed to winning an argument to promote their agenda.
It is really quite easy to distinguish the to groups from behavior alone – never mind their belief. If they attempt to hide raw data, hide the methods used to massage the data, use “tricks” to produce graphics and statistics, apply inappropriate statistical methods, hide from debates, and attack those who disagree with them using personal attacks rather than debate the points – they are not scientists no matter what piece of paper they may hold saying otherwise.

Richard,
I understand that both the link I provided and the figure in this article included both actual data and model predictions (that was the whole point of the article). Here is a more recent analysis of the match between model predictions and actual temperatures from a peer-reviewed publication. I trust conclusions from peer-reviewed publications more than a figure with no supporting information.http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/7/4/044035/Full/erl439749f1_online.jpg

Simulations are not reality.
Your link is to simulations.
The above graph is of reality.

You have replied – and tried but failed to justify – saying

I understand that both the link I provided and the figure in this article included both actual data and model predictions (that was the whole point of the article).

The article provides a graph that compares a plot of climate model predictions with two plots of empirical data obtained from the real world (i.e. from radiosondes on balloons and from microwave sounding units on satellites) and it compares those data to a plot of climate model predictions. In each case, the plots are averages of more than one data set.
Your link provides a graph that compares a plot of climate model predictions with model simulations of what empirical data obtained from the real world would have been if it not affected by real effects in the real world.Simply, some people have used computer modelling to invent excuses for why the climate models fail to emulate reality as indicated by the measurements.
Or, to paraphrase,

Simulations are not reality.
Your link is to simulations.
The above graph is of reality.

Ooops.
My phrase
and it compares those data to a plot of climate model predictions
is a duplicate that only adds confusion. Sorry. The sentence should beThe article provides a graph that compares a plot of climate model predictions with two plots of empirical data obtained from the real world (i.e. from radiosondes on balloons and from microwave sounding units on satellites).
Again. Sorry.
Richard

Richard,
You responded:
“Simply, some people have used computer modelling to invent excuses for why the climate models fail to emulate reality as indicated by the measurements.
Or, to paraphrase,
Simulations are not reality.
Your link is to simulations.
The above graph is of reality.
I hope you understand now.”
Unfortunately, you missed the mark again. Both the graph displayed in this article and the graph I provided from Rahmstorf’s paper include plots of actual data and model simulations. In the figure you are defending, however, the range of variation of the model results is not provided, just the mean of several different models. You suggest that the temperature measurements in the Rahmstorf’s paper are “model simulations of what empirical data obtained from the real world would have been if it not affected by real effects in the real world”. Not true. There are two plots of temperature data, one of actual measurements, the other with adjustments to factor out the effects of volcanoes, el Nino, and solar variation. Other natural and anthropogenic (most notable GHGs) are included.
As I am sure you are aware, satellite data do not measure actual temperatures and many assumptions (e.g., models- yikes!) are used to derive temperature estimates. Recent analyses suggest that the algorithm that Spencer and Christy are using does not account for the effects of clouds appropriately which leading to overestimates of temps during el Nino years resulting in an underestimate of temperature increases over the past few decades. I understand what you were trying to say, the problem is you are simply wrong.

Luke
It is clear that you still want to promote your mistake.
You say to me

In the figure you are defending, however, the range of variation of the model results is not provided, just the mean of several different models. You suggest that the temperature measurements in the Rahmstorf’s paper are “model simulations of what empirical data obtained from the real world would have been if it not affected by real effects in the real world”. Not true. There are two plots of temperature data, one of actual measurements, the other with adjustments to factor out the effects of volcanoes, el Nino, and solar variation. Other natural and anthropogenic (most notable GHGs) are included.

Firstly, I am defending nothing. The graph in the above essay is correct so needs no defending.
I am disputing the graph of deliberately corrupted data that you have presented.
My statement you quote is true.
You are claiming that the models are not models when they provide “adjustments to factor out the effects of volcanoes, el Nino, and solar variation. Other natural and anthropogenic (most notable GHGs) are included.”
No, lad. None of those things is known, none is measured, and none is adequately understood for their effects to be modeled so they can be used to apply the “adjustments” with any known accuracy or precision.Your graph is a fabrication constructed from ad hoc “adjustments” to empirical measurements of reality.
And you recognise that you are talking bollocks because you try to obfuscate by a confused use of the word “model” when you continue saying to me

As I am sure you are aware, satellite data do not measure actual temperatures and many assumptions (e.g., models- yikes!) are used to derive temperature estimates. Recent analyses suggest that the algorithm that Spencer and Christy are using does not account for the effects of clouds appropriately which leading to overestimates of temps during el Nino years resulting in an underestimate of temperature increases over the past few decades. I understand what you were trying to say, the problem is you are simply wrong.

As I am sure you are aware, mercury thermometers do not measure actual temperatures and many assumptions (e.g., models- yikes!) are used to derive temperature estimates.
Your unstated and unreferenced assertions about a calibration error in the satellite data stink of desperation.I understand what you were trying to say, the problem is you are deliberately presenting falsehoods.
Richard

Richard,
You stated, “Your unstated and unreferenced assertions about a calibration error in the satellite data stink of desperation.” No desperation, here is the url for the paper I was referring to:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1958-7
Below is a summary of some of the problems with satellite measurements of surface temperature.
1. Satellite temperature data have come from a succession of 12 different satellites, requiring a site adjustment for the entire Earth at once for each transition. Further, the orbits of satellites decay over time, requiring a continuous “site move” adjustments for the entire data set. Finally, satellites do not pass over a given point on the Earth at the same time each day (let alone punctually at the time of minimum and maximum temperatures), thereby requiring a continuous Time of Observation adjustment every day. The fact that these adjustments need to be made for the entire record at the same time, rather than for individual instruments as with the surface record, means there are no nearby stations without the adjustments which allow comparisons to check for biases introduced by the adjustment. Consequently, the story of the satellite record is a history of major errors corrected after some time in successive versions. A recent paper by Weng et al. (2014) points out a purported additional error that has not been publicly accepted by the authors of the UAH temperature set. They have, however, given notice that a new version is forthcoming which will make a significant difference.
2. As noted by Jim Eager, satellites do not measure surface temperature. In fact, they do not even measure the same portion of the atmosphere over different locations of the globe. About 50% of the signal comes from the first 3000 meters of the atmosphere (including the surface), and 50% from above. Because each altitude band above (approx) 2400 meters contributes less and less, that means the mean altitude of the temperature measurement in the TLT channel is close to, but above 3000 meters.
3. Actual attempts to measure the actual surface temperature using satellites have been made, with the current benchmark for accuracy being +/- 1 K. For comparison, surface instruments read by eye have an accuracy of +/- 0.25 K for mercury thermometers, and 0.05 K for electronic thermometers. UAH can report greater accuracy than that, but only by not actually reporting surface temperatures and not specifying too closely what part of the Earth/atmosphere system they are reporting the temperature of (as it varies by time, season, and geographical location).

Luke, thank you for your comment. This is why I used the LIDAR example. To anybody who understands the tech, its simply laughable that we can claim to know our mean global temp. All optics have profulound roadblocks to that end. With satellite surveys we have the issues you have presented. With ground based measures we wrestle with coverage, calibration, and selection. With oceanic we have all these issues compounded. The error bounds themselves are moving targets. At what point in the process of surveying global temp do we approach accuracy? Try LIDAR during a snow, or try to see in infrared on the other side of your furnace…what the real time cell size for each ARGO unit? Now we can understand that the margin for error is enormous

Luke
I refuse to grasp your ‘red herring’ about the excellent satellite data.
The issue is simple. As I said and explained.
1.
The graph in the above essay is correct so needs no defending.
2.
I am disputing the graph of deliberately corrupted data that you have presented.
3.
Your graph is a fabrication constructed from ad hoc “adjustments” to empirical measurements of reality.
Anything else is your obfuscation of these three points.
Richard

Mr Rkichard S Courtney
..
I suggest you review the opinion written by Carl Mears of RSS …
..” A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets”
…
Reference: http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
..
Please note Mr Mears is the senior research scientist at RSS

Joel D. Jackson
I suggest that you stop waving a red herring.
The above graph in the essay shows the satellite data and the balloon data. They agree.
I don’t care about the opinions of anybody when the data is clear:
e.g. in this case, the satellite data are corroborated by the balloon data.The nonsense graph presented by Luke is fabricated data.
Richard

Luke, you keep posting that bogus graph. Why? NO models have been accurate enough to rely on.
If models were any good, at least some of them would have predicted the most significant event of the past century: the 18+ year stasis in global temperatures. But none of them predicted that. They all predicted rising global temperatures, far higher than have been observed. Every model was wrong.
And thanx to Joel Jackson for posting Carl Mears’ opinion. But as we know, surface station data is heavily corrupted by the UHI effect. Naturally it will show more warming than natural global warming, due to the bad siting of many stations (on asphalt, at airports, near air conditioner exhaust outlets, near trash burning facilities, near large concrete structures, etc.)
Mears has his self interest to consider. But most readers here are neutral by comparison; we are not looking for our next pay raise and/or promotion based on our publicly stated opinions.
The alarmist crowd is fighting a losing battle when they argue about facts and evidence. That’s why the debate has shifted to the political arena. That is where ‘consensus’ matters. Thus, ‘climate change’ — a truly meaningless phrase — has replaced the repeatedly falsified CAGW narrative.

Dbstealey.
..
The opinion of Carl Mears is significant, mostly because the RSS product is his baby.
..
It’s very hard to accept that satellite data is more reliable than surface measurements, when the producer of the satellite data thinks the surface data is more reliable.

Joel D. Jackson
You addressed your point at me and both I and dbstealey rejected it as the nonsense it is. You have ignored my answer so I am replying to your response to dbstealey.
You say

Dbstealey.
..
The opinion of Carl Mears is significant, mostly because the RSS product is his baby.
..
It’s very hard to accept that satellite data is more reliable than surface measurements, when the producer of the satellite data thinks the surface data is more reliable.

It is only very hard to accept reality if you are biased.
As I said and you have ignored.

Joel D. Jackson
I suggest that you stop waving a red herring.
The above graph in the essay shows the satellite data and the balloon data. They agree.
I don’t care about the opinions of anybody when the data is clear:
e.g. in this case, the satellite data are corroborated by the balloon data.The nonsense graph presented by Luke is fabricated data.

And I now add that in science an empirical validation (e.g. of satellite data by balloon data) always trumps an opinion.
This is because an opinion is like an anus, everyone has one and they all deliver the same thing.
Richard

Oh! So you now say the satellite data is right after all!
And none of that alters the facts that
1.
The graph in the above essay is correct.
2.
I am disputing the graph of deliberately corrupted data that Luke presented.
3.
Luke’s graph is a fabrication constructed from ad hoc “adjustments” to empirical measurements of reality.
I suggest you give up because although Luke is an ineffectual troll your attempt at tag teaming his trolling demonstrates you are an even less competent troll.
Richard

Courtney: “Oh! So you now say the satellite data is right after all!”
..
Your logic is flawed.
I did not say the satellite data is <b. right , I said it is not a measure of surface temperature. I refer you to the statement by Carl Mears for an insight into that matter.

Jackson
Your trolling is not improving but at least you are now trying.
By pretending an attack on my logic you hope to wave your red herring in hope of averting discussion from the facts that1.
The graph in the above essay is correct.
2.
I am disputing the graph of deliberately corrupted data that Luke presented.
3.
Luke’s graph is a fabrication constructed from ad hoc “adjustments” to empirical measurements of reality.
You claimed the satellite data were wrong. If they were wrong in the asserted ways then they would not agree with the balloon data.
You now admit the satellite data are corroborated by the balloon data. Hence, you agree that the satellite data are not wrong as you previously claimed.
Having lost that argument, you now claim the satellite data is not the surface data, but so what?
Any error of logic is yours, but logic does not matter when waving a red herring so – as I said – you are now trying to be an effective troll. But, sadly for you, your attempt at trolling is still total failure: it has not detracted from the three facts I have again enumerated. Indeed, your trolling has provided opportunity to remind people of those facts.
Richard

Courtney.
…
I did not say ” the satellite data were wrong.”
.
The satellite data is not measuring the surface temperature. Ditto for balloon measurements. You need to understand that measuring the lower 5 km of atmospheric oxygen emissions is not the same thing as reading a thermometer located a meter above the surface.
..
Ever hear of the phrase “apples and oranges?”
..
As per Carl Mears, satellite data is not as reliable as surface measurements. So, please get with the program and learn that balloons don’t measure surface temps, and satellites don’t measure surface temps. Get it?

Joel Jackson,
Thanx for your Appeal to Authority. Can I play, too?
Thank you:
The chart I posted above (with “Reality” in the chart) is by Dr. John Christy. He is not just a “senior research scientist” at RSS. Dr. Christy is the top guy at UAH — and as I’ve shown repeatedly, there is essentially no difference between RSS and UAH data. They are converging.
But there aremajor problems with surface station data.
So Dr. Christy, as the #1 guy, trumps your #3 or #4 guy. That’s what happens when you drift away from evidence, and rely on an ‘authority’ fallacy. Don’t you ever consider that your authority might be influenced by his ambition? That’s what it looks like, when you posted his public opinion.

Jackson
Ever hear of the phrase, “Don’t be an idiot”.
You raised a red herring I dealt with it.
You are now trying to raise another red herring.
The lower troposphere balloon and satellite data are as comparable to the climate model projections as are the surface data.
If there is an ‘apples and oranges’ issue then you need to demonstrate it.The graph in the above essay is correct.
Your tag-team partner, Luke, tried and failed to dispute it.
Your first attempt at an alternative dispute of it failed.
Your present attempt at a dispute of it is meaningless arm waving.Get with the program and admit that the graph in the above essay is correct. Get it?
Richard

You are funny dbstealy.
…
Playing the my appeal to authority is better than your appeal to authority.
…
However you are mixing your apples and oranges.
Neither RSS nor UAH measure surface temperatures, and Carl Mears talks about the reliability of satellite data.
..
What does Christy say about the reliability of satellite data (just so we can compare apples to apples?)

Jackson
Please try to get your tag-team partner, Luke, back.
He was as illogical and ineffectual a troll as you but he was funny. By replacing him with you we have lost his laughable contributions and gained your annoying ones.
Both of you are so wrong as to be ridiculous and neither of you contributes information of use. So can we have Luke back, please? The laughs are missed.
Richard

Joel Jackson says:
Regarding Mears’ ambition, is there any doubt he would like to move up to the #1 spot? He’s relatively young, and ambitious. Sure, that’s my opinion. But you cite Mears’ public opinion as proof of… what, exactly? I always ask: Cui bono? That usually gives the right answer.
You also say:I did not say ”the satellite data were wrong.”
Point of information here. People on both sides tend to take the latest satellite snapshot of global T and use it to argue their point. But a snapshot is meaningless without context.
That context is provided by the temperature TREND. In fact, the trend is all that matters in the current debate. The issue is global warming. Is it happening? Is the trend up, down, or flat? And for how long?
Looking at the past ten or fifteen years, it’s clear that the trend has been extremely flat (± almost nothing). That shorter time frame also eliminates the large anomaly in 1997.
So, what does that mean?
It means that everyone who said global temperatures would continue to rise was wrong. (It’s OK to be wrong, I seem to recall an instance when I was wrong, too.) Every GCM was wrong. Every alarmist scientist was wrong. Algore and every wild-eyed politician was wrong. But instead of admitting it, they fabricate excuses.
It is unacceptable for them to make up stories like, for example, global warming is chugging along as usual. Or that the heat is hiding somewhere, maybe way under the ocean. Or any other stories contradicted by real world observations.
Mears is wrong. Satellite data is the best; it is much better than surface station data.
I think Mears is angling for personal benefits. Don’t believe me? Take a look at all the folks he cites: Hansen, Ammann, Trenberth, Santer, Wigley, and other rent-seeking scientists. He’s moving up the career step-ladder, and he isn’t about to stop now. So his ‘opinion’ comes down on the climate alarmist side. That’s where these guys board the gravy train.

PS dbstealey
…
Do you have a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows that surface station data is less reliable than satellite data? Your link brings me to a web site from a TV weatherman, and not any reputable source.

Joel Jackson,
I’ve explained, maybe you missed it. I gave my opinion just like you quoted Mears’ opinion.
Here’s the problem, as I see it: you just don’t want to accept that global warming has stopped. You’re a believer in the man-made global warming narrative. So you find quotes from folks like Mears, and accept his opinion as the gospel truth.
But most scientists know that satellite and radiosonde balloon data is accurate. Many $millions are spent every year on those systems, and they are accepted as being accurate. They show the global temperature trend. They all agree with each other. That is the issue here — not someone’s opinion.
So, what do you think of no global warming for many years now?

Joel Jackson says:You should really investigate Mears before making such a ludicrous statement.
I did investigate. I commented on him afterward when I compared him with Dr. Christy. I pointed out a bunch of folks we’ve seen in the Climategate email dump that he cites. You should really read what you’re responding to before you comment, otherwise I’ll have to agree with Richard Courtney about you.
And:Your link brings me to a web site from a TV weatherman, and not any reputable source.
Are you saying Anthony Watts is not reputable?

Joel Jackson says:Can you post the CV for the TV weatherman?
Anthony Watts is a published, peer reviewed author. His Surface Stations paper has also been accepted for publication.
So yes, I can provide a CV. Will I? No.
Because you can go find it yourself. You are being nothing but a bothersome site pest with your ad hominem, denigrating comments. You never respond to questions; your entire argument amounts to no more than an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Basically, you are a climate alarmist with no CV, and no facts or evidence to support what appears to be a religious belief on your part.
Please respond on-point without insulting the owner of this site. He’s a better man that you are, and all you’re doing is trolling this thread. So leave your personal attacks out of it. I’m happy to have a discussion about verifiable facts, empirical evidence, and quantifiable measurements. But so far, you’ve got nothing.

Joel Jackson,
Citing Lindzen was a response to your link, which started it. But Dr. Lindzen trumps your guys, so now you don’t like it. Tough. That’s life.
And you’re still making your ad hominem personal attacks:So, please, tell all of us, what institution of higher education has granted the TV weatherman a bachelor’s degree?
Rather than worry about a published, peer reviewed author who has more papers in the pipeline, post your C.V.
This I want to see. Let me guess, it’s like this:“I read the pseudo-skeptical pseudo-science blog, so I think I know which end is up!”
That’s about it, isn’t it?
I note once again that you have no arguments that don’t fall back on your Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. You never respond to all the facts and evidence I post showing that global warming stopped many years ago. Even the recent head of the IPCC admits that. Even the journal Scienceadmits that global warming has stopped. And that is the central issue in the debate. Your side lost, that’s all.

Dbstealey.
..
When did asking someone for a CV become an “ad hominem personal attacks??????”
…
What is the matter? Are you worried that the lack of a degree by an accredited institution diminishes the reputation of the TV weatherman?
…
Oh….yeah, I forgot, he is not able to sign the OISM petition because he’s not qualified. No wonder I couldn’t find his name in the list of signatories.
…

Joel Jackson:When did asking someone for a CV become an “ad hominem personal attacks??????”
So where’s your CV?
And no one can sign the OISM Petition any more. Go ahead, try to. It was used for Kyoto in the nineties.
You don’t know very much, that’s clear. Are you still in high school?

@Joel Jackson:
I’ve posted my qualifications here several times over the years. But I notice that you’re avoiding doing the same. You keep trying to steer the discussion to irrelevant items.
So you can just start reading threads until you find my technical background, or I will post it again, just for you.
But since I asked first, it’s your turn first. Post your qualifications. So far, you haven’t disputed my analysis that you’ve picked up your misinformation from propaganda blogs like ‘skeptical science’ (a blog run by a cartoonist and neo-Nazi). If I’m wrong, just tell me — post your CV in a verifiable way. If you’ve got one.
As for the OISM Petition,I wasn’t aware of it at the time. That was almost twenty years ago. I emailed them about a year ago, asking for an application. I received no reply. So I’m not sure of their status now.
But what I am sure of is that the real ‘consensus’ (for what that’s worth in science – nothing) is heavily on the side of skeptics of ‘dangerous man-made global warming’. Really, the alarmist side is no more than a relatively small clique. I’ve challenged folks on your side to produce even 10% of the number of named scientists and engineers that OISM site has. *crickets*
Then I challenged your true believer pals to post just ONE PERCENT of the number of OISM names, who contradic their two central points: that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere. Again: *crickets*
You can’t come up with even three hundred names of people with degrees in the hard sciences. Pathetic, no?
Since you can’t even produce 1% of the OISM’s 31,000+ number, where’s that ‘consensus’? Like everything else alarmists claim, it’s completely bogus.
So, I’ll be glad to give you my background. But first, produce yours. I want to be able to verify that I’m not discussing these things with an English Lit major. Or a high school graduate. Or a neo-Nazi wannabe.
The ball, as they say, is in your court. But since you’ve avoided every other question asked so far, I don’t expect anything.

Joel jackson sez:A simple “yes” or “no” would be sufficient to answer the question, “Are you qualified to sign it?”
A simple yes or no would be extremely easy. Sure would. But that would let you off the hook. That’s not happening.
You don’t get to demand anything. The only way you can get what you want is to produce verifiable info first, since I asked you first.
You amuse me. Clearly, you’re getting your misinformation from a thinly trafficked alarmist blog. No wonder you’re so easy to out-debate. You’ve got nothin’. Logical fallacies and links to self-serving rent-seekers is all you’ve got. Oh, and trying to denigrate the owner of this award winning site. That’s all you’ve got, and it’s been one big fail.
Hey, how’s that ‘consensus’ thing doing? ☺

Jackson:
You have split your thread comments so you may not have seen my recent post to you. It is here but to save you needing to find it I copy it to here.
I write to congratulate you. I remind that you did not answer my last post to you: it said

Please try to get your tag-team partner, Luke, back.
He was as illogical and ineffectual a troll as you but he was funny. By replacing him with you we have lost his laughable contributions and gained your annoying ones.
Both of you are so wrong as to be ridiculous and neither of you contributes information of use. So can we have Luke back, please? The laughs are missed.

Subsequently you have not got Luke back but you have conducted your silly and ineffectual assertions to dbstealey. It has been hilarious fun watching dbstealey wiping the floor with you while you respond with drooling drivel. This has been even funnier than the slapstick from Luke, THANKYOU!
So, I withdraw my request that you get Luke back. You have yourself now mastered the artform of idiotic clown troll.
Richard

Since the pink unadjusted temperatures are poised to break out of the 95% confidence interval and statistically falsify the models, I’d say that graph doesn’t say what you think it does.
If you want to look at the red adjusted temperature series, that shows that natural variability has influenced temperatures by +0.2 to -0.15 over a short 13 year span. If natural climate variability is +/- 0.35 C per decade, there is no way to discern a tiny CO2 effect within that noise.

Luke, take a look at that pink line, it’s the unadjusted data. Now take a look at the red, adjusted data line. The increase is simply due to adjustments.
FYI, unless they used raw data for the pink line (didn’t see where they say) then the pink line is also made up of adjustment that they piled more adjustments on top of. Then they included no error bars which are likely larger than the indicated increase in temperature.

Luke May 29, 2015 at 11:56 am
Yes, take a look at Rahmstorf’s 2013 paper.
——
That graph isn’t actual temperature data. The data has been been adjusted for what the authors calculate to be natural variation.
“These contributions (from natural variation) were computed separately for each of the five available global (land and ocean) temperature data series (including both satellite and surface measurements) and subtracted.”
So their comparison is meaningless. First they say natural variation has little or no effect. Then when their predictions are wildly wrong they still claim they were right.

Read the caption more carefully. They provide both the adjusted and unadjusted temperature records. The adjustment accounts for stochastic effects that cannot be modeled (like the effect of a cloud passing over on a thermometer when recording air temperature over the course of a day) and therefore provides a better comparison.
From the caption
Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011).

Luke May 29, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Read the caption more carefully.
——
Sorry I was referring to the actual paper. The graph uses the third and forth IPCC assessment reports. The third report was published in 2001, but the graph includes information dating back to 1980 when comparing predictions to actual temperatures. Huh?
Also this bit: “Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.”
So the models are adjusted to fit a trend line dating back to 1980 that is based on adjusted data. Double huh?

Luke may care to use less unreliable sources than papers published by known climate extremists form the post-Communist Potsdam Institute in the joke journal Environment Research Letters, which published Cooke et al’s 97% consensus drivel and refused to publish any correction.
First, the pink line, deliberately faint in Luke’s propaganda graph, is – like it or not – the real-world data to 2011. Since then, the observed temperature has dropped below even the very wide uncertainty interval in the predictions. The red line incorporates arbitrary adjustments intended to make it appear, falsely, that temperature is matching prediction when it is not.
The propaganda paper uses three artifices to tamper with the measured temperatures: volcanic activity, ENSO, and total solar irradiance. But there has been no eruption of global significance since Pinatubo in 1991; since 1990 the PDO, much influenced by ENSO, has been both positive and negative for roughly equal periods, and the El Niño in 2010 was almost as strong as that in 1998; and, though solar activity has proven stronger than predicted during the current peak of the 11-year synoptic cycle, global temperature still shows no warming since end 1996.
It is no good pretending, as the propaganda paper does, that it is solely the inability of the models to predict volcanism, ENSO and TSI that is the reason for their failure. Apply Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation for the models’ exaggerations is that they are far too sensitive to radiative forcings.

Indeed, very bad math in Foster and Rahmstorf 2011.
Foster made the code and data available on his Tamino website here.https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/data-and-code-for-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
If you follow it through, one finds that:
– they used an old version of the PMOD composite for the TSI solar irradiance data which actually produced a coefficient which is negative to the solar cycle. ie., the opposite of that which is supposed to occur. What did Foster (a Phd mathematician) do about it? He simply reversed the coefficient sign and went on about his business instead of investigating what might be wrong. What he really did was purposely use an old outdated PMOD composite dataset so that he could pretend there was more “adjusted” warming.
– In addition, the dataset used goes back to 1950. Did he show all the results back to 1950 for which he had data? No, he just started it at a low point in 1976 so that he could exaggerate the warming trend.
– In addition, once again, the dataset shows the AMO index in it. In other words, he would tested it for statistical significance. And it is, indeed, very significant. Did he use it? No. Because it produces much less adjusted warming having the 60 year cycle of up and down temperatures.
When one reproduces the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology (but using the proper TSI index because that is just too far dumb) and going back to 1850, one gets this.http://s13.postimg.org/u9ciffzqf/Hadcrut4_without_AMO.png
Yes, Luke, it was peer-reviewed in so much depth. And you are so convinced by it. At least three very major errors which any objective reviewer should have picked up on.

Luke–
Your reference is to the TAR, published in 2001, so includes only the period of increasing temperatures (ending in 1997-98 with the super El Nino). The models extended those slopes through the next 20 years, completely missing the Pause.

I know exactly what peer-reviewed means. I have been both a reviewer and have had my work reviewed. Please spare me the theory that the 10,000+ climate scientists throughout the world all are conspiring to promote AGW. Publishing in scientific journals is extremely competitive. Believe me, if a reviewer finds something wrong with an analysis, they will let the editor know.

Please spare me the theory that the 10,000+ climate scientists throughout the world all are conspiring to promote AGW.

And then we get the mass conspiracy talking point/meme as a means of trying to provide the ridicule factor. How trite. That’s been covered here many times as well. You certainly don’t need mass conspiracy to explain what’s going on with the corruption of climate science journals.
Bruce

Luke, a few questions: why is a heavily manipulated temperature graph more persuasive to you than simple, clean satellite and balloon datesets? Must actual data be blessed by peer review before it’s acceptable? Why does everyone, including the IPCC, say global temps have paused for the last 12-18 years (depending on one’s preferred data set), when this paper claims otherwise? Are you saying the IPCC, et al, are wrong, and this one data-massaging paper is correct?

“Luke, a few questions: why is a heavily manipulated temperature graph more persuasive to you than simple, clean satellite and balloon datesets? ”
It gives him the answer he wants to see. Classic case of confirmation bias. The adjustments are to take out the signal of volcanoes, aerosols, etc. but the problem is that if they already tweaked the forcings from this to make the models match, then the estimates are a merry-go-round of wrong adjustments used to make models that are wrong look better than they are.

“I’ve posted my qualifications here several times over the years.”
…
A simple “yes” or “no” would be sufficient to answer the question, “Are you qualified to sign it?”
…“As for the OISM Petition,I wasn’t aware of it at the time”
…
Must not be that important if you ignored it for so long.. “I emailed them about a year ago” ?????????
…
Why did you wait so long?????
…“So I’m not sure of their status now.: ……
..
Wow…..it must be discontinued then….. maybe you should look into it.
…“So, I’ll be glad to give you my background”
..
Don’t care about your bench tech background, just say “yes” or “no” if you are qualified to sign a petition that is no longer in operation, and is no longer relevant to the issue at hand.

Hi Richard,
Look at all those questions from ‘j jackson!’ What a defensive reaction from someone who refuses to ever answer a single question about himself. He seems to be quite the underacheiver. I seem to recall him begging for money handouts from WUWT readers in the past.
As I stated, I’ve posted my Metrology qualifications in detail here, and I have no problem posting them again. I would certainly answer fully and completely — if ‘j jackson’ had asked politely. But he didn’t. He demanded answers in a hostile way, and only after I had asked him for his own expertise in the subject.
Mr. Jackson must first post his own qualifications, in a verifiable way, since that’s how it works: I asked him first, and I asked him repeatedly after he questioned the qualifications of others. But instead of answering, he began to to cast innuendoes. He even attacked the host of this site, who never even commented in this thread. Mr. Jackson will do anything, no matter how despicable, to avoid answering any questions.
It doesn’t work that way. Since I asked him first, Jackson is required to answer first, in a verifiable manner: what, exactly, are his professional qualifications on this subject? I have mine. You have yours. But does Mr Jackson have any? At all? The fact that he will not admit that he’s unqualified in this field explains his evasive attitude toward those who are.
j. jackson is filled with animosity and hatred for those more knowledgeable than he is on the primary subject of this site. We see it in his comments; in his repeated ad hominem attacks on Anthony, who is a far better man than Mr. jackson could ever hope to be, and who is certainly more honest and knowledgeable. And we see it in jackson’s repeated attempts to avoid answering any questions about himself — or any questions at all. He thinks he gets to ask all the questions, but answer none. It doesn’t work that way.
If jackson had asked me first, I would have answered. But now it’s too much fun holding his feet to the fire. He needs to show us in a verifiable way what gives him the right to denigrate the host of this site, and others. Man up, Jackson! People are looking at you and wondering: what is your opinion is based on? Is it a physics degree? Or is it based on reading alarmist blogs?
‘j jackson’ seems to be nothing more than a simple reader of alarmist blogs and media scare stories. His kind is very easy to spot here. We’ve seen all the SkS arguments that are made repeatedly by people who get their misinformation from those same climate propaganda blogs.
So, Mr. Jackson, I think you’ve got nothin’. Prove me wrong.

Jackson:
I write to congratulate you. I remind that you did not answer my last post to you: it said

Please try to get your tag-team partner, Luke, back.
He was as illogical and ineffectual a troll as you but he was funny. By replacing him with you we have lost his laughable contributions and gained your annoying ones.
Both of you are so wrong as to be ridiculous and neither of you contributes information of use. So can we have Luke back, please? The laughs are missed.

Subsequently you have not got Luke back but you have conducted your silly and ineffectual assertions to dbstealey.It has been hilarious fun watching dbstealey wiping the floor with you while you respond with drooling drivel. This has been even funnier than the slapstick from Luke, THANKYOU!
So, I withdraw my request that you get Luke back. You have yourself now mastered the artform of idiotic clown troll.
Richard

They’ve been wrong long enough without the funding stopping, why should they ever admit they were wrong?
I am just waiting for them to say that if they ever were wrong it was because of Global Warming… everything and anything that ever happens is because of Global Warming!

Scientists hoodwinked by politician’s agenda to get rid of carbon fuels in the name of energy independence.
This is bribery at a scale far larger then FIFA’s. The only difference being that this is mostly done with full disclosure in the name of saving the planet.
Lucky for those scientists that the majority of people forget quick and politicians even faster, there is always another scam for which public money will be made available.

I have a comment on the tactics of argument. In my view it is a mistake to refer to the catastrophists as “the climate scientists”. Every time you do that, you transmit an impression that you are an outsider to science and that you are attacking “science”. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, but why concede it? You should choose some other phrase to refer to them; even “the majority of climate scientists” would not be as bad as “the climate scientists”. Other possibilities are “the catastrophist climate scientists” or “those scientists dogmatically wedded to CAGW”.

“Climate scientists” are not scientists. They are computer modelers. Climatologists, literally a dying breed, are or were scientists.
The computer gaming charlatans will never, ever admit that they were wrong. They’ll just retire on their ill-gotten gains and die off in their turn.
Geology advanced only when the die-hard opponents of catastrophic floods and “continental drift” retired or died. A few in mid-career did have to admit they were wrong about plate tectonics, once the mechanism of seafloor spreading was discovered, but it took an ungodly long time for them to come around.
And there weren’t the ideological, financial and career incentives in opposing plate tectonics then that now exist in CACCA.

MIT Climate Scientist: Global Warming Believers a ‘Cult’
During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

I really do not care if they ever admit they were wrong. FACTS ARE PASSING THEM BY. They are making themselves irrelevant. Let them dig their own professional integrity graves deeper and deeper.
Science realists will stop by once in awhile and holler down, “Want help out of there?” If they say, “Yes,” we’ll toss them a long rope tied to the rear bumper of my brother’s Chevy 4×4, say, “Hang on!” and step on the gas — PETROLEUM heh — and they’ll be out in a jiffy.
“Kinda dirty, there, guys,” we will chuckle, “the showers are over there.”
And they lived happily and honestly ever after.
The End.
#(:))

That said, I want to affirm Mr. Michaels and say that the reckless-disregard-for-the-truth at best, mostly likely lying, AGW pseudo-scientists owe scientists like Dr. Murry Salby and Dr. Willie Soon and the general public an enormous apology. It just doesn’t matter to me whether they make one or not. They just don’t matter to me AT ALL.
What matter is, as another commenter pointed out above, getting the facts about CO2 out there.

No need to the scientists got that one right too. Fortunately, regulations that reduced the release of sulfates from power plants averted even greater damage to fresh water aquatic environments, especially in the NE United States.

There never was any acid rain in the first place.
The water acidification was being caused by the re-emergence of the forests in the areas surrounding the lakes and streams.
As always Luke, you fell for the con.

Acid Rain, Ozone Hole, Global Cooling, Population Bomb, Ocean Acidification, Peak Oil, Y2K, on and on and on.
When will they admit they were wrong about Global Warming?
When have they ever admitted they were wrong?

Pre Paris Rebuttal?
Is there any plan to mount a coordinated PR rebuttal of the climate change scam in advance of the November COP21 / CMP11?
I’m hoping that GWPF, WUWT and many, many other notable bloggers and people such as Lord Monckton have at least an embryonic plan to get some crowd funding in place to mount a counter-attack, based upon real science.
Dear moderators – you have my email address. I am willing, within reason, to help make this happen. I say ‘within reason’ because my only link with big oil is paying it/them rather than the reverse and have only a modest pension; so call it a charitable offer. If this strikes a chord, get in touch, but I am no Superman – this would be a massive team effort.

In my experience, habitual liars do not EVER stop. It’s what they know, it’s how they handle things, and if they’re caught they try and lie their what out of that. AND their capacity for self-justification is nearly super-human.

I’ve had the same experience (ugh — they are HORRIBLE to deal with), Mr. Snider. I can still hear myself saying (and this was common to nearly all the l1ars I’ve dealth with):
“You KNOW that I know what the truth is. There is NO ONE ELSE IN THE ROOM. You know I know you are lying.”
And they just keep it up.
Incredible (and re: “superhuman,” such a diabolical pride or love of l1es comes from a supernatural source, imo).

Thanks for that reminder, U.K.. I feel like I’m doing that 90% of the time on WUWT, but, I still have fun writing (even if the thought that no one is reading what I write is often depressing). No doubt, you are the only one who read what I wrote. But, YOU are someone! #(:))

“When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?” asks Patrick J. Michaels in the title of his WUWT post.

I think the answer is: the Climate Scientists claiming detectably significant global warming from burning fossil fuels will say they were wrong when the fundamental reason they were wrong is shown to be that they used a pre-science premise as the basis of their research process and that pre-science premise informed their work product conclusions.
In other words, they will say they were wrong when they think that they are starting to be demarcated as outside of valid science by objective scientific debate of the broader community; namely, they will say they were wrong when they are about to be categorized as ‘pre-scientific’ people.
Then, as opportunity allows, they will start championing the ‘CO2 isn’t a significantly detectable driver of climate’ position.
But what of the ideology that created the ‘pre-science’ premise that distorted the scientists’ process and product? Well, the ideology remains active in our culture to be used as the next ‘pre-scientific’ basis of the next social movement that wants to mimic having the support of science.
John

Rogerknights, you have it. But the “re-Radiative” premise doesn’t like it when you table convection. On a cold day, run a bath of hot water, then watch the heat escape from high concentration to low. What am I missing? I feel we get confused when dishing out terms like “greenhouse” where a poly layer acts as a thermal layer…there is actually no real world equivalent to this effect in atmospheric terms.

Some physicists demonstrate little regard for what has been observed. In Dr. Balls debate with Dr. Keating, Keating slammed Ball as having published little toward actual climate science. How does that square? I was under the assumption that climate science drew from more than just physics

rogerknights on May 29, 2015 at 6:32 pm
– – – – – –
rogerknights,
If they are relying on a pure radiative physic viewpoint as you indicate, then is their assumption that all else in the complex EAS (Earth Atmosphere System) remains equal as the radiative phenomena plays out?
If so, then they fail to integrate the whole system dynamics, in favor of CO2 from fossil fuels as an isolated and sufficient cause through radiative processes of the non-observed significant warming above natural variations in temps.
John

The IPCC was set up to find the evidence of human involvement in the mild warming detected at that time
NOT to detect the real causes – that was not the endgame. The dice were already loaded.
Easy money – who can challenge anything the UN created monster said – they are both judge, jury and government adviser.
Climate ‘scientists’ merely supplied the ‘evidence’ they had been paid to provide in order to frame CO2 for a ‘crime’ it didn’t commit.
Surprise, surprise when confronted with enforced UN funding for themselves, their universities and their NGO
friends it was impossible to resist. They all took the funding and ran for as long as they could get away with it.
Some will have hoped their hippie prejudices would come true, some will have known they were very likely wrong all along but with creative data manipulation the scam could be kept going beyond their lifetimes or at least beyond dependance on their new found security of tenure and influence.
Additionally and more worryingly, the elected and unelected elites with other agendas of a far more sinister kind chose to use the greed of the ‘scientists’, their simplistic ‘green friends’ and the lefty twitterati in Hollywood to pursue their own plans for a UN led One-World Governance.
They tried it in Copenhagen and will try again.
Whilst claiming the semi-religious higher ground in saving humanity from itself they also display that desire to control everything and everyone through the medium of “Climatism” while feathering their own nests at the same time – it’s all for your own good of course – just pay up and be grateful that such fine superior beings
are in your midst. (or at least looking down on you from their ivory towers – laughing – for now)

“When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?”
Those responsible for perpetrating this scam will almost certainly never admit it. They’ve already proven themselves to be so dishonest, why would anyone think they would have a sudden ethical change?
Do you really think the likes of Joe Romm, Katherine Hayhoe, Micheal Mann, Andrew Dessler, etc will ever admit they were full of it?

Thank you Janice. This year I’ve had no weather problems since winter ended. Been to Texas twice so far this year but both times were before it got really wet down there. My only weather problem is that there was no rain in the forecast here in central Indiana but just as I was putting my shoes on to mow my acre of a pop up thunderstorm soaked us. But now the roads are dry so at least I can take a little cruise on my motorcycle.

Wrong is OK for a scientist. Irresponsible is not. I think many climate scientists have been irresponsible with their headstrong promotion of a weak supposition that our CO2 could wreak havoc. By all means entertain the possibility, but those who pushed it as all but certain have failed as responsible adults. Not least in failing to make clear efforts to restrain the political activists who went over the top with the opportunities that this scare presented them with.

They will never say they are wrong.
When did any of you say you were wrong?
Perhaps you are always right. But do you or anyone else seriously believe that?
So, who is the first to say I’ve been wrong?
Don’t hold your breathe.
No one admits they were wrong. Any volunteers?
As Max Planck said“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time”

Mike B.! Maybe I am just extra bumbling, but I have admitted I was wrong many times (and also, sometimes, out of cowardice, have not) — even on WUWT (if I could remember where, I’d link to my comment). Reason: Until I do, there is a wound (even just a small wound by a small mistake) that needs healing in the one I’ve wronged — and that matters. Very much.
There is a saying from the movie “Love Story:” “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Nonsense! Okay, yes, I agree, when you love someone, you so readily forgive their wrongs that they really don’t need to say they are sorry, but we still should. It says that you value them highly enough to give them that courtesy. To apologize, in short, is to say, “I care.” And if you love, you care — very much. And we are not super-human. Most relationships will FALL APART if the partners do not admit wrong and ask for forgiveness when they mess up.
Back to AGW…
I don’t think they care.
Aaaaand, lol, neither do I!
Have fun in the swamp of junk science, “scientists”! lololol
Truth has moved on!

I thought Svaalgard was a warmist? He states above quotes: “but just as the Climate Scientists you will probably never admits that you could be wrong, ever” This seems to be a huge shift on his part. So he is saying AGW was crapula after all.

Exactly.
When Dawkins was asked what would change his mind on Evolution, he quickly said, “Evidence.”. When a presuppositionalist was asked what would change their mind, just as quickly the answer was, “Nothing.”
If the science cannot be wrong it is not science.

Well said Leif !
I have contended with Leif on various occasions, but my impression has always been that he’s a scientist with an extra opinion, rather than an opinion looking for scientific cover. He really pwnd some folks this time.
It was claimed that “Total Solar Irradiance [is] off [by] .15% or more”, and Leif responded with real data.

The sun does have an influence on the climate, but it is minor. CO2 does have an influence too, but also minor [with the amounts we are putting out]. Internal fluctuations [e.g. of ocean circulation] may be the causes for changes on the scale of decades or centuries, while changes in the Earth’s orbit [mainly caused by Jupiter] are the cause of glaciations. Over billions of years, the Sun eventually becomes the dominant cause, but we don’t need to worry about that for now.

I’d say I agree, but there is very little opinion in this. It’s mostly raw facts, and one can’t agree with facts, one can only acknowledge that they are true. One can also admire the skill in summarizing the whole state of the underlying science in a mere 84 words. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Of course AGW is crapula!! … but so is the Solar Hypothesis.
I remember a paper covered here published by Stanford, talking about how temps were similar as today millions of years ago when the sun was shining at 70% power or so compared to today. The punch line … the oceans absorbed the heat, and kept the place warm.
To date, the SCIENCE says [err .. or the lack of scientific evidence that proves anything otherwise] … Climate is a chaotic process, .. and is not under control of anything!!! To say the least, if it is controlled by something … we ain’t figured it out yet!!!

I think, Eliza, that Dr. Svalgaard very carefully refuses to take a public position on the issue. You’ll note on re-reading that quote of his in your comment that he says that the “Climate Scientists {} will probably never admit{} {they} could be wrong … .”
When Dr. Svalgaard argues that variations in TSI do not drive major climate shifts, he sometimes appears to be supporting AGW. Actually, he never does positively support AGW — he just does not positively support the anti-AGW side of the argument which sometimes makes him appear hostile to the arguments of us science realists (as I characterize those of us arguing against AGW).
I bother to write this because I want to prevent actual warmists from taking away the impression that they have a genuine, eminent, scientist like Dr. Svalgaard on their side: they do not.

So it appears the jury is still out for Dr. Svalgaard which is probably the most reasonable position to take. A variation on the position “We don’t know”, in which there is much science does not yet know and freely admits to not knowing.
However this statement, “Climate Scientists {} will probably never admit{} {they} could be wrong … .”, is a damning rebuke of climate science. With this stance they are effectively not practicing science but some kind of hybrid political-activism-high-priest-papal-infallibility science.
Who knows in a hundred years we could be extinct due to CO2 causing some kind of Eco-system chain reaction or we can be entering a new age of enlightenment and prosperity with good weather and even cheaper and more available energy. Don’t know and anyone who thinks they can use science to predict this with certainty is not a scientist but a charlatan.

It looks to me as if Dr. S is in the AGW camp. His campaign to revise SSNs may well represent a disinterested pursuit of improving science, but it also just happens to serve the agenda of his grantors in the government.
He sounded hopeful that the “Blob” or warm water in the NE Pacific might signal the end of the “Pause”, as it’s called by AGW advocates, thus undercutting one of the skeptics’ strongest arguments. I wonder if he is disappointed that notwithstanding the Blob, the warming standstill plateau still stretches toward the horizon, arguably now with a slight downward slope.

@ John Whitman — If you want me to understand what you wrote to me about Dr. Svalgaard, you’ll have to explain further. I don’t see how what you wrote follows from what I wrote.
In the meantime sign me,
Wondering,
Janice

– – – – – – – –
Janice Moore,
As a preface to this reply to you, it is a little odd for you to talk about Leif in your comment (the one that I was critical of) when Leif was participating in this thread prior you your comment about him.
You superimposed terminology like ‘warmist’ and a discussion of Leif’s public views. Leif has demonstrated over many years that he is pretty consistently sophisticated enough to not be involved in the use of that kind of tribal language (which includes terms: de-nier, lukewarmer, global warming, climate change, skeptics, etc, etc). That you use the terms in your comment seems to link Leif as someone who uses such terms.
Leif is very disciplined to distain from overemphasis on any one aspect of the very complex nature of the EAS (Earth Atmospheric System) in the face of you isolating his views on just one aspect (solar) of the impacts on the EAS. I find him more circumspect than you seem to have conveyed.
Leif, I apologize for talking about you in your presence instead of at you. I shall desist from doing it any more.
John

Well said Janice. Unlike politics, In science, there are no “sides”. People like MarkW can’t imagine a discussion without “sides”. In the words of Dr. S, he is a “true believer”. He’ll probably be by here shortly to denounce me to the thought police for agreeing with a rabid Eurasian like Dr. S. Very suspicious of me. I hope MarkW doesn’t find out that I’ve been writing in a journal and taking walks alone…

well the impression I am left with is that “them” are not wrong at all, rather it is all part of a dastardly plot ( I wouldn’t have thought people that devious )
or
It is all a green induced wrongness ( I wouldn’t have thought people that misguided )

I have sometimes wondered if there might be a popular consciousness, in that ideas are propagated through some sort of mental airspace.
This would explain fashion. fortunately I seem to be immune, as anybody who has seen my attire will attest.

The link you provide is for the lower troposphere. Christy’s graph is for the mid troposphere. It is odd that he chose that dataset. I wonder if it is because the lower troposphere (28,000 ft and lower – where people actually live) has a much better fit with the models.

I am not aware that the UAH has a different data set for lower and mid troposphere. My understanding is that the satellites have a difficult time differentiating layers and they give us a reading on everything below the MSU instrument. Obviously I could be mistaken.
The article states, “The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.
The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature.” So lower troposphere for all. Apples to apples.
I do see your point though, since the link to Dr. Christy’s testimony shows mid-troposphere. Now I’m confused.

Yes…There are a number of problems with the mid-tropospheric data, which is actually what Christy shows. One problem is that there is a very significant disagreement iin trends between the two satellite estimates for the mid-tropospheric temperatures because it is very hard to deal with the fact that the channel has significant weight in the stratosphere too. By averaging the two estimates, Christy has given the illusion that the data sets are in close agreement but it is only an illusion.
There are other issues with the various radiosonde data sets…and some have undergone multiple versions that have had signficantly different trends. And, AGW skeptics have tended to cherrypick which versions they use.
There is a good reason why Christy has chosen to show only the averages over the two satellite data sets and the averages over the 4 radiosonde data sets (with no specification of which versions were used).
As usual, people who call themselves “skeptics” seems to have abandoned all skepticism when data is massaged to confirm what they want to believe.

As usual, people who call themselves “skeptics” seems to have abandoned all skepticism when data is massaged to confirm what they want to believe.
I am a skeptic. If the facts change, or new facts are produced which change things, I am perfectly willing to change my mind.
That’s the difference between skeptics and True Believers like joelshore. Nothing can convince joelshore that ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ is happening. Certainly, the fact that global warming stopped many years ago can’t convince him. I wonder what would or could convince joelshore that his world view is wrong?
Anything? Or is dMMGW his Religion?

Instead of waiting for these folks to admit that their predictions are wrong, which they aren’t going to do, stop communicating with them. We all have things to do. We all have demands on our time and attention. These charlatans are a waste of precious time. Let it be known moving forward that you, we, don’t have time to engage in counterproductive debates with con artists.

“It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong”, concludes Patrick J. Michaels at the end of his WUWT post.

{JW (moi) created this as what the climatologists would say in an admission that they were wrong}
Climatologist – “We admit we were wrong, but it doesn’t matter because it is just a good idea that we should just stop burning fossil fuels anyway: 1) for the collective good of Malthusian-like resource conservation approach; and 2) for continuing the crusade to keep nature (terrestrial and extra-terrestrial) untransformed by privately owned industrialization.”

Although they would admit their research product was wrong, they will never admit their ideology is wrong; where the ideology is the one that corrupted their climate science research product.
John

I read the article you linked to and it defined the troposphere as being the surface of Earth to 50,000ft.
“A very basic metric for climate studies is the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer known as the troposphere, roughly from the surface to 50,000 ft altitude.”
So wouldn’t mid-tropospheric mean: from the surface to 25,000ft?

The models predict the behavior of the whole atmosphere, and the ‘fingerprint’ of it is the tropical tropospheric hotspot. Christy highlights that because in fact it shows how 1) models are hypotheses
2) you have to check models with data 3) there is a clear mis-match.
And from this Christy concludes the models are not reliable enough to be used for predictions.
There is a distinct lack of tropical mid-troposphere warming, models are wrong, and it turns out that is likely a signal that Lindzen was right about an “Iris effect”, as the model corrections that fix the discrepancy happen to be ones that incorporate an Iris effect (Stevens 2015 paper).

“The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”
Science is not harmed by fanatics being proven wrong…. science is harmed when said fanatics go unpunished and are welcomed back into the science community to do it again and keep the ill gotten gains they’ve made.
Further science would be greatly harm if science doesn’t come out and say that evil deniers(many of whom have no “officially” approved science degrees) were right all along and that only by this tiny core group of people who refuse to give up the scientific method saved the planet from these fanatics.
The global warming scam can not be allowed to end like so many other science scams of the past… people must be jailed and some should in places like the US be charged with treason.

Solar cycle changes is the cause of the majority of the warming in the last 30 years.
Any idiot knows, the mechanism causes that changes to the earth’s temperature is not a change to the solar total irradiation.
Only an idiot would continue to provide a link to a graph of total solar irradiance (TSI) stating that solar changes are not causing the planet to cyclically warm and cool. What is the point?
I can and will now defend the assertion that solar cycle changes are the reason for the majority of the past warming. We are now going to experience scary abrupt cooling. This is no longer a game, we have a front row seat to watch the most important solar event in recorded history and the most important climate change event in recorded history.
TSI changes are small. If TSI changes was the cause of the warming the majority of the warming would be at the equator not in high latitude regions, as the majority of the short wave solar radiation is received and the majority of the long wave radiation is emitted in the equatorial regions. The same logical argument applies for greenhouse gas warming. The majority of the greenhouse gas warming should be at the equator. There is almost no warming at the equator which supports the assertion the warming has not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.pnghttp://www.eoearth.org/files/115701_115800/115741/620px-Radiation_balance.jpg
The majority of the warming has been in high latitude regions which supports the assertion that something that cause latitude specific warming is the cause.
The solar changes cause planetary warming by modulating the amount of cloud cover and cloud properties. There are cycles of high latitude warming and cooling that correlate to solar magnetic cycle changes.
The solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. The high latitude regions have started to cool.http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Sir, You ridicule all those with a different opinion to yourself, are you infallible like the pope or just big headed.
Take for instance your stance on the gas giants effecting the sun!! I ask does the sun have an inbuilt clock to regulate it,s cycles, or does god do it?

Sigh. How much energy is in UV and magnetic flux? Since you say these things have important influences on climate, you will undoubtedly need to propose amplifiers. Funny how we never get to read the details about those amplifiers from solar enthusiasts. And links to peer-reviewed high quality research are nonsupportive. So what we get are links to marginal peer-reviewed low quality research. Of course if one is not schooled in standard research critique methods, solar supporters blithely pay-it-forward, echoing this nonsense to others easily convinced of piecrust theories. Easily made, easily broken.

What would be the point of showing you the abundant support for hypotheses arguing the varied effects of UV and magnetic flux on climatic phenomena?
You must have seen them before to have concluded that they’re rubbish.
Trying to lead true believers to valid science at odds with their religious faith is generally a waste of time.

Pamela,
The amplifiers are the repeatedly demonstrated mechanisms by which variation in UV and solar magnetic field strength have been observed to affect climatic phenomena.
Why you chose to ignore so much actual data, ie direct observations of nature and experimental results, is mysterious to me. In the case of UV the observed mechanisms include but are not limited to the effect on ozone levels and absorption of the increased energy in seawater and, arguably terrestrial surfaces as well.
To ignore reality is as anti-scientific as it gets.

An even greater sin is to confuse wishful thinking with reality. The energy in the UV and in the solar magnetic field is minuscule and the heating effect on the troposphere is negligible. The upper atmosphere is severely influenced, but that is because the density there is a billion times smaller than at the surface.

Lief,
Small doesn’t mean insignificant.
Since the effect of UV variation on the upper atmosphere is indeed severe, the effect on climate of that flux on climatic phenomena is similarly important.
As you know, in physics effects often don’t scale linearly, in both directions, ie greater and lesser. Take for example the effect of increasing energy in nuclear detonations with their blast, radiation and thermal effects on the ground and air.
Mechanisms by which UV (to say nothing of magnetic flux) can and does affect climatic phenomena have not only been proposed but conclusively demonstrated in the field and the lab.
Thus, to dismiss out of hand the possibility of important effects of solar activity on climate seems to me, as I said, not only unscientific but anti-scientific, and example of hand-waving special pleading of heroic proportions. In short, the reaction of a true believer.

Since the effect of UV variation on the upper atmosphere is indeed severe, the effect on climate of that flux on climatic phenomena is similarly important.
You cannot so conclude. Just because A is big does not imply that B is similarly big. When you compare the energetics that should be blindingly obvious, but as you say, one can never convince a true believer that his view is false.

Leif,
It’s not the instantaneous energy that matters, but the time integral of the difference between high UV periods and low UV periods that matters, and the effects thereof on specific climatic phenomena.
I don’t have “belief” in any hypothesis. I just go where the evidence leads. IMO it’s preposterous to imagine that variation in solar activity doesn’t affect the climate of Earth and other planets. All available evidence tells me that it does. Which should come as no surprise.
Those who d*ny a major solar influence on cyclical “climate change” remind me of the geologists of my youth who claimed that the fit between South America and Africa was simply a coincidence and those in the 17th century who imagined that fossils just accidentally happened to resemble living things, before your compatriot Steno, a Catholic convert, conclusively demonstrated that assumption false, thanks to sharks’ teeth.

It’s not the instantaneous energy that matters, but the time integral of the difference between high UV periods and low UV periods that matters, and the effects thereof on specific climatic phenomena.
There is absolutely no evidence for that and no theory or model that explains how that would work. You are invited to come up with the detailed numerical calculations that support your claim.
For the rest of your comment: they are just the usual silly analogies that are totally irrelevant and are all simply fallacies ranging all over the map. Here is another one that you would appreciate: a stone cannot fly, you cannot fly, ergo you are a stone.

Recent cosmic ray study, finding a statistically significant effect on year-to-year temperature fluctuations of solar-modulated GCR flux. Naturally its authors had to d*ny any secular, longer term affect on climate in order to get published, but despite such obligatory genuflection toward the orthodoxy, how could the cumulative effect of decades of temperature differences not affect climate?http://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

Their conclusion:
Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT. They resonate with the physical and chemical evidence emerging from laboratory studies suggesting a theoretical dynamic link between galactic CR and GT. However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed (by first-differencing). Thus, it is important to stress that they do not suggest that CR influences can explain global warming and should not be misinterpreted as being in conflict with the IPCC (25). Indeed, the opposite is true: we show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability.
——
The sun can have and does have a small effect [even the 0.1% TSI variation translates to a 0.1K delta T]. The main issue is whether the sun is a major driver, and clearly as your link shows, it is not. Are you now convinced?

If you mean the plot on comment lsvalgaard May 31, 2015 at 10:46 pm the answer is that it comes from your link to the PNAS paper as you would have known if you even bothered to read that paper before claiming that it supported your belief. And, yes, if the data don’t support your belief, there must obviously be something wrong with the data…

Lief,
That doesn’t answer my question.
I looked for the source in the paper.
The correlation is good until near the end, when the “data” appear adjusted warmer.
As I said, although I haven’t contacted its authors, I suspect that the verbiage you cite and which I mentioned was inserted so that it could survive review.

Then your question was ill-posed. As for ‘surviving review’, I think it is just the opposite: they find no correlation, but in order to show the relevance of their work [and obtaining funding] it is important to claim that at least some of it seems to be climate related. I use the same trick and it works really well. Here is the last line of our press release for the upcoming IAU general assembly in August:
“This revision of the sunspot number has thus numerous implications for studies of the solar dynamo, space climate, and possibly terrestrial climate change.”

I’m amazed they’ve managed to hold off on admitting at least some error this long. I had the audacity this week to point out some errors in a Cosmos episode on global warming hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I was accused of being a mindless minion of Fox news and was bombarded with 20 You Tube Videos ‘proving’ CAGW. You Tube Videos! It’s hard to believe that anyone can still insist that this is ‘settled science’. I’ve been arguing about CAGW for almost 18 years and I have to admit…it loses some of the sport when the theory you’re arguing about is proving itself wrong with every passing year.

Here’s the thing, a cooling planet doesn’t actually ruin CAGW. 18, 20, 35 years of cooling…or for that matter 18 to 50 years of warming. It doesn’t validate or ruin CAGW in any way. The original assertion that Co2 is now the main driver for global climate hinges on what happens to the heat. We know beyond doubt that Co2 and IR have a lovely relationship. What we don’t know, and this is what Lindzen and others have focused some of there time on, where does that heat go? What are the key and supporting interactions…water vapour, arisols, ocean heat transfer, solar cycles. We don’t know enough to be concrete in our assertions. As for CAGW, we may yet experience a warm glut of water that has been ruminating in the deep which will raise surface temps 2C within the next 35 years…WTF knows? Its not looking like that will happen, and every day its looking like Co2 does not drive today’s climate. To kill CAGW we have to deal with the theory, because as any zealot will tell you…the warming may yet come…which on its head will mean nothing. That’s where we’re at

Scott
Whenever they bring out Fox News it tells me the limitations of their intellectual capacity. The Left have been told what to think for so many generations, that they no longer know HOW to think. Gullible bobble heads all.

They do not admit being wrong because they use a different measurement of wrong.
According to the temperature data there has been a warming trend, and so they declare their models are correct since they also show a warming trend. The specifics of the warming trend are glossed over because as they say, “THERE IS A WARMING TREND, SHUT-UP ABOUT IT ALREADY.”
Yes there has been a trend, but their trend is a gross exaggeration of what actually occurred and is occurring, and they ignore the 2 decade halt in the warming trend. This is of course dishonest. Courts expect the truth the whole truth… Partial truth is considered a lie. They are using a partial truth to lie.
If the warming trend ticks up again they will claim credit for predicting it, (no matter how accurately or not) and if the trend goes towards cooling it is because they have saved the world. Taking credit for what ever happens up or down is normally the provenance of shallow politicians. That climate scientists thought this a good model, so to speak, to follow remains unfortunate.

The executive reports by the wordsmiths have gone in the exact opposite of the indicated prediction errors. That alone should tell any reasonable person that this is not science. Back to the chart, it’s going to look a lot worse when the AMO pulls the hiatus into an outright decline while the sky hook projections are going off the charts. Slope differences at the margin will be glaring and will require even more ignoring of the facts and name calling by the green cultural revolution zealots.

Yes am also expecting the cooling to start over the northern Atlantic area of the NH. The clues are there be had from the last ice age. Get the right weather patterns turning up often enough and for long enough and it can set up the right conditions for taking the Atlantic side of the NH into climate cooling.

The UN IPCC AR5 WGI report clearly showed and established the failure of its climate models in Chapter 11 Figure 11.25a of the report as noted at:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/07/un-wgii-report-relies-on-exaggerated-climate-model-results/
Amazingly they just ignored their own evidence of model failure and proceeded to use these flawed models to frame all their doom and gloom projections in tens of thousands of pages of purely speculative baloney contained in the WG!! and !!! reports. This action is simply beyond incompetence and demonstrates that political ideology drives the climate alarmist movement.

Bubba Cow! Thank you, so much, for telling me!! I’ve really been concerned about Jimbo. He was so consistently present… . Getting the kinks out with the links :).
I wonder why he and Gail Combs who also posted many great links are now frequenting other blogs… . Just wondering.
Have a great weekend enjoying those lovely sea port bell wind chimes,
Janice

“The End Of The World”
Why does the sun go on shining
Why does the sea rush to shore
Don’t they know it’s the end of the world
‘Cause I know I’m not right any more
Why do the birds go on singing
Why do the stars twinkle along
Don’t they know it’s the end of the world
It ended when I had to admit, I’m wrong
I wake up in the morning and I wonder
Why everything’s the same as it was
I can’t understand, no, I can’t understand
How the climate goes on the way it does
Why does my heart go on beating
Why do these eyes of mine cry
Don’t they know it’s the end of the world
It ended when the funding said goodbye
Why does my heart go on beating
Why do these eyes of mine cry
Don’t they know it’s the end of the world
It ended when the funding said goodbye

Of course, the problem is that they and their backers have nothing to lose by being wrong as long as they are believed. (Except their personal integrity for those who see but will not say what they see.)

“Some people believe the climate models perform well
in general because they can show the dips and rebounds
associated with volcanic eruptions. Those people are
mistaken. It is only because climate models areforced to simulate those volcano induced dips
that they show up at all. Climate scientists created a dataset
called stratospheric aerosol optical thickness or aerosol optical depth
to make their models respond accordingly. (See the GISS webpage
Forcings in GISS Climate Model – Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness —
— the papers linked at the bottom of that GISS webpage {http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/ }
describe how the modelers estimated that data;
that is, for most of the time period of the dataset,
the data are not based on direct measurements.) ***”
Source: Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale, pp. 94-95 (2013)

The models were wrong going forward, and they couldn’t get them to go back either. The LIA and MWP weren’t that long ago. To cover those events, they said it didn’t happen, it was local and not world wide. ( both events have been shown to be world wide). CAGW main evidence is the correlation between co2 and temp. If you look at the chat they drew up, do you see a change in temps during any of those times? If the temps changed, then the co2 levels would have had to change. Then they would have been left with having to explain where the co2 came from or went.

#(:)) Well, good for you, Pavel, to be such a good sport. Try asking your question again. If you are seeking arguments and evidence for why AGW (human CO2 caused global warming) is not “science,” but mere speculation only, use the Search box in the right hand margin of this page. WUWT has TONS of great articles for you to read to learn the facts about CO2.
Best Wishes,
Janice

By the time the Theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven wrong we’ll all be dead and buried.
The politicians and “marketeers of doom” will have made and spent all of their money.
By then, the next set of politicians and “marketeers of doom” will have selected another crisis that will also play out over two lifetimes, guaranteeing new money for the complicit and punishment for the dissenters.
Sadly, this is the way the real world works.

A lot of AGW bellwethers will have to die.
Then a new generation of bellwethers will realise the whole AGW scam was an expensive madness.
They will ridicule the previous generation of AGW believers while putting the climate record straight.
AGW money will dry up and the carbon dioxide religion will melt away.
AGW will be consigned to the dustbin of history and become the vilified standard by which all junk science is measured.

If the science is settled why is more than one GCM required? If it isn’t settled, and the models use different science, then an average of models is meaningless. That, in a nutshell, is why climate science and the claims about global warming are a crock.

I imagine the alarmists are hoping the warming will recommence, in which case the global warming propaganda will redouble. If the temperature levels-out or falls, then they won’t admit they were wrong, instead they will just walk away whistling to look for another scam to promote.
That’s the way cowboys operate. Only accept responsibility where you stand to gain from doing so,

lsvalgaard May 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm
The ‘interruption of the magnetic cycle’ is what any idiot might believe, but has no grounding in fact. So your premise is wrong [or worse].

Why do you continue to make the same silly comments concerning TSI? Changes in TSI did not cause the planet to warm and is not the reason why there is sudden cooling of both poles of the planet.
What you are doing is creating a straw dog, to distract the reader from the real cause.
You have no idea what is happening to the sun and you have no idea how changes to the solar cycle affects planetary temperature.
You have ignored the fact that sunspots are shrinking and now disappearing.
You have provided no physical explanation as to why sunspots were shrinking and now disappearing. The sunspots have observationally changed. The is a physical reason for the observational change in sunspots.
You ignore observations that disprove your beliefs. Cult science is what Feynman calls people who continue to support a hypothesis that has been disproved by observations.
Do you have anything beyond name calling and repeating your old tired beliefs?
The sun modulates planetary cloud cover.
The solar cycle has been interrupted which will and has caused an increase in high latitude cloud cover which explains the sudden cooling of both poles.
What is currently happening to the sun has happened again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again … which explains how the late Gerald Bond has able to find 22 cycles all of which correlate to solar cycle changes which is the limit of the paleo proxy.
The interruption to the solar cycle is also the reason for the sudden increase in rainfall, see Little Ice Age for what to expect next in terms of the regions and type of effects, however the actual cooling be more sever, similar to the 8200 BP abrupt cooling event.http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpghttp://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpghttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions ….
Europe/North America
….The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps caused by fluorosis after the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783.[20] Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[21] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early 15th century), as crops failed and livestock …. …. Hubert Lamb said that in many years, “snowfall was much heavier … ….Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[25] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, “Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[24]
Historian Wolfgang Behringer has linked intensive witch-hunting episodes in Europe to agricultural failures during the Little Ice Age.[36]
Antarctic
Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age.[46] An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[47] The authors note “other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear.”

Well put William, It is indeed the sun and nothing to do with TSI, the sun’s behaviour and it’s cycles are controlled by the positions of the large giant planets. It is not gravitation but the feed back of charge that enters the poles of the sun and exits approx. 30 degrees north and south in that band. This planetary positioning gives us both the length and strength of the solar cycles. It is this charge [ the missing 95% of the universe} that gives our Earth the warm periods and the ice ages. The solar system tilt to the galaxy and our positioning in or near galactic arms also play a part. CO2 does diddly squat.

as France’s top Climate Diplomat, Laurence Tubiana said at the Carbon Expo 2015 in Barcelona this week, it (CAGW) is not an ideological question, it’s an economic question. science doesn’t come into it.
Tubiana also admits to RTCC’s Ed King that French climate teams are bypassing National Govts to depoliticise the issue by working with sub-national entities – think California, Canadian provinces or the so-called “seven Australian governments” Christiana Figueres (UNFCCC) met with in Australia, as reported by the Guardian, (UN climate chief says the science is clear: there is no space for new coal – 4 May):
29 May: RTCC: France ready to step in if climate talks stall, says Tubiana
by Ed King in Barcelona
***VIDEO: 12 mins: Laurence Tubiana, French Climate Ambassadorhttp://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/28/france-ready-to-step-in-if-climate-talks-stall-says-tubiana/
26 May: RTCC: Can carbon pricing be a climate saviour?
By Alex Pashley in Barcelona
The Carbon Expo is filled with carbon pricing advocates, but the concept does have its detractors.
Socialist-leaning countries like Venezuela in the ALBA negotiating bloc reject market-based mechanisms. You cannot put a price on nature, they argue, nor should businesses or nations be allowed to trade away their obligations…
Giving clearer signals to business so they can prepare is critical, adds Kyte (World Bank), and the “foundation for unlocking investment… for a innovative, dynamic low carbon economy”…http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/26/can-carbon-pricing-be-a-climate-saviour/
btw do a search “Carbon Expo 2015” Barcelona, and you will find the MSM is as silent about the financial shenanigans that went on there as they are about trade deals such as TPP and TTIP. even Bloomberg, a media partner along with Reuters, has said nothing. as for Reuters, they’ve written plenty but can’t bring themselves to include the words “Carbon Expo”; instead they write about a business event in Barcelona!

There are several responses to a continue pause, and or cooling:
1. (Already seen) The excess heat is being stored in the oceans and will roar back with a vengeance, any year now.
2. We missed some dynamic in the climate models that causes cooling, but CO2 will soon overwhelm this dynamic and warming will soon return with a vengeance.
3. What? We never predicted warming. Those were fringe publications by scientists of no import. CO2 causes climate disruption, and we’ve pumped so much of it into our atmosphere so quickly that we’ve prematurely caused the next ice age.
I think #3 might be fun, and likely if we see a significant fall in temperatures in the coming decades. Remember, it’s all about alarmism driving government action. If you’ve got a looming ice age, screw the fig leaf of scientific integrity #1 and #2 might give you, ICE AGE!!

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?
Climate scientists will admit that all of the scientific premises of the IPCC were incorrect, including the general circulation models (GCM) when the planet abruptly cools and when atmospheric CO2 drops.
Cooling of high latitude regions has started.
The initial reaction of the cult of CAWG has been to ignoring the high latitude cooling. The cult of CAWG response has been keeping up the campaign of calling those who point out the hundreds of independent observations and analysis results in peer reviewed papers that disprove CAWG ‘deniers’.
Based on what is currently happening to the sun and how the climate has changed in the past when there was a similar abrupt change to the sun (best analogue is the 8200 years before present cooling event) there will be roughly 0.7C to 2C cooling. The question is how fast and how much cooling there will be rather than will there be any cooling.
As the planet starts to significantly cool, political support will disappear for CAWG. Significant abrupt cooling will be a major media subject which will accelerate the paradigm shift in climate change beliefs and the end of CAWG/green scams.
It will be interesting to listen to the initial creative explanations to explain the start of cooling and the attempts to keep CAWG on life support.

What amazes me is the almost total avoidance of any commentary by Mosher about the failure of the models. I think he had a couple of simple one liners, but otherwise has zip to say at all. Amazing. Of course Lukey is up to his old tricks avoiding actual data and observations. He haunted the Marohasy blog for years and just loves his data if it can be used upside down ala some of the Tiljaner stuff etc. And where is Nick Stokes?

Sal, when temperature data sets, on the ground or from satellites – you pick, are compared to any and all observed solar data sets as well as quality reconstructions, there is no correlation. There are those who massage the data sets till the elephant’s trunk is made to not only wriggle but sing a very bad version of our national anthem. I recommend we plug our ears, let alone our nose.
Observed temperature data does not match solar data. That some here continue to look for solar unicorns degrades the level of science acumen assigned to this blog, much like these singers degrade our national anthem.

Pamela,
Global temperature correlates very well with solar activity. During the Medieval Warm Period, for instance, there were only two brief, shallow SSN minimum, the short Oort, in the middle of it, and the longer Wolf, well towards its end, which could be attached to the LIA, into which the world was transitioning during it.
The LIA by contrast included the big Maunder Minimum and the deep Dalton, with less recovery between them than during the MWP. The Modern Warm Period, by contrast, has been associated with an exceptionally active sun and as yet not major minimum such as those mentioned.

What you claim are just coincidences and myths [which you help to propagate]. And the various Grand Minima were not all that grand (e.g. the Dalton). Here is our latest estimate of solar activity the past 400+ years. There is no correlation worth talking about with temperatures:http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-37-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png

Leif,
What you call a myth, I call an observation. That you have dedicated yourself to “adjusting” the observational record doesn’t invalidate the authentic data from all sources supporting prolonged, low solar activity during those intervals.
I see I forgot the Spoerer Minimum. My bad. Sorry. It was the first of the three, not two, LIA minima. Or second of four, if you attach the Wolf to the LIA.

i am the Director of 3 DNA testing laboratories, so I don’t have a hobby in science. So, as nice as it is that you want to advice me in someone you are untrained, uneducate and unqualified in. I don’t think your comment is fair or honest. What do you do? Whatever it is, I am very very sure, you would not appreciate me, or any other ignorant person walking into your work, and telling you how to do your job.

I generally believe we have far too many laws, but perhaps we need at least one more.
More than once in my lifetime, deliberately fraudulent, peer-reviewed research has resulted in creating sociatel problems. The faked vaccination/autism research has led to deaths. Faked research on the historical use of guns in America resulted in flawed legal decisions. In the last week, faked research concerning acceptance of alternative lifestyles was exposed, fortunately before becoming yet another death-defying meme.
Why hasn’t the act of seeking publication of peer-reviewed research that purports to be factual, but is instead fraudulent, been made a criminal act? I frequently read retractionwatch.com and am appalled at some of the things that are happening in peer-reviewed literature.
I don’t know if it would change much, but maybe some scientists would think twice before making unjustifiable adjustments to data if they believed it could be perceived as fraud.
Note that there is a big difference between fraudulent research and research containing honest errors (e.g., the original DDT eggshell-thinning study).

Why we are at it. Include false reports of all types. People do incredible harm, when they lie, or post false reports, as many deniers do. Gullible people love to soak up information that fits their beliefs, and almost never believe real data and evidence that disproves their beliefs. So ridiculous that any blogger, politician or denier can overwrite, smear, and blacken solid science.

People do incredible harm, when they lie, or post false reports, as many deniers do.

Please name one. We DO have hundreds of lies and exaggerations and self-promoting hypocritical propaganda directly from the government-paid climastrologist catastrophe religion you appear to worship below.

When you accuse me of “worship” tells me that you are against all science, in all disciplines, and assume every scientist is dishonest. Not a single hardworking family man exists? No one is honest? Every report faked? From NASA….fake. From Australian Bureau of meteorology…faked. Norwegian glacieologists….faked. Right? Every single one? Everyone around the world working together to lie, manipulate and cheat? So, if I have to doubt hard evidence, otherwise I am worshipping it? That is just outrageous and you know it. You claim I worship our hardworking, honest men and women. Well I support the troops. Risking their lives in Antarctica, sometimes fatally.http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/may/01/deaths-arctic-researchers-ice-climate-change-cornelissen
You come across as an arm-chair self-prescribed expert, typically completely uneducated in science, no training, no knowledge, no background, no honest investigation or research, with a desire to jump on the band-wagon to worship the ideas of conspiracy, ironically without evidence of any hoax.
So, easy to invent doubt, much harder to go into Greenland and risk your life to drill ice cores. Then our VETS come back to put down by people like you.

And, here is the actual data, not some made up graph that everyone is swooning over.http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h–/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/1/1380599335494/ProjvsObs450.jpg
IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red). IPCC
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.
But, since when has any of the deniers cared about real data, real evidence and real scientific consensus?? Never. They just link to some dodgy website, believe hundreds of organisations are in a giant conspiracy, and every scientist is dishonest and making up results to get funding!! Ironically, all without evidence.

Vern Muir.
Rather, since when has any all of the deniers cared about real data, real evidence and real scientific consensus?? They just link to some dodgy website, believe hundreds of Government-paid organisations are in a giant conspiracy paid to promote Big Government need for the 1.3 trillion from global warming hysteria, and every government-paid scientist is dishonest paid to produce those results promoting global warming and (many hundreds are) making up results to get funding!! Ironically, all from without thousands of words of evidence from the government-paid “scientists” and bureacrats and politicians themselves. Despite the data.

The softening of the APS’s new draft statement on climate change implicitly concedes the earlier one was over the top. If other scientific societies periodically re-issue their position statements, the softening revisions they make will implicitly concede (very clandestinely) prior excess. OTOH, if they don’t soften and the climate continues to plateau, they’ll look even worse in the end.

I think there is something wrong with Pat Michaels graph. Both RSS and UAH show a large average annual increase in 1998 compared to 1997 or 1999 …. about a 0.4 degree C difference. But I do not see that in his expression of the data. Are thiose gree squares annual averages ? Are they running averages (over 5 years, like the red line) ??

it is diffiucult to understand why the scientific community is not up in arms at the IPCC’s reliance upon models, and the plitical mantra that the science is settled.
If the science was truly settled there would be only one model, or only 3 or 4 different models each based upon different CO2 emission scenarios, eg Hansen’s A, B and C scenarios.
The question that warmists should be asked should they cling to the ‘science is settled’ is to identify which one of the 102 models is based upon the settled science for CO2 emission scenario A, which one of the 102 models is based upon the settled science for CO2 emission scenario b, and which one of the 102 models is based upon the settled science for CO2 emission scenario C?
if they are unable to identify the model in question, then it is clear that the science is not settled.
The average of wrong is wrong. Averaging lessens the width of the error margin, but it never makes the cummualive of incorrect data correct. Dr brown has often commented upon the problems with the IPCC’s approach to model projections and the averaging thereof, and those comments should always be bourne in mind when considering the scientific worth of these models and the GIGO projection.
After 25 years or so of climate research and many billions of dollars thrown at climate research the climate scientists would have one believe that no progress has been made with the assessment of climate sensitivity. That is a travisty and an admission not simply of failure but also that they do not understand the most fundamentals and basics of the science which they claim to be exploring. If the science was well understood, it would be possible to narrow the range of climate sensitivity.
Of course, everyone knows, but refuses to admit that climate sensitivity cannot be high. The fact that there was no temperature increase according to the satellite record between 1979 and in the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998, ie., a period of more than 18 years demonstrates a low sensitivity. The fact of the recent ‘pause’ (the second pause in the satellite era) which extends for more than 18 years, again demonstrates low sensitivity. The satellite era and the measurements made clearly suggest that any sensitivity to CO2 is below the threshhold of sensitivity the measuring equipment such that no signal to CO2 is discernable in the satellite data set (which set corresponds with balloon measurements).
The satellite data suggests that the warming that has taken place since 1979 is a one off step change in and around the Super El Nino of 1998 and was brought about by natural not manmade causes. the satellite data suggests that there may be no sensitivity to CO2, but a more accurate conclussion is that teh sensitivity is so low that it is not discernible within the margins of sensitivity of our best measuring equipment. Depending upon the sensitivity of that equipment and the error margins, there is scope to keep aliive the claim that CO2 may drive temperatures, but not at a rate above natural variability.
In any other science the high sensitivity models would have been abandoned long ago. There can be no justification for not abandoning these, but as others have noted they are kept not for scientific reason but because they are necessary to boost the average projection into the so called scary region.
However, if the ‘pause’ continues into 2019, and god forbid if there is some cooling following this year’s El Nino (if that evelops as looks reasonably likely), it will be very difficult for the IPCC not to address the climate sensitivity issue (it side stepped that issue notwithstanding that several papers have been published in the 24 months prior to AR5 suggesting modest sensitivity) and the fact that all the models are outside the 95% confidence level (if the ‘pause’ continues all the models will all be outside the 95% band).
At the time that the drat AR5 was being circulated, I suggested that there would not be an AR6 for the above reasons. As the ‘pause’ continues and lengthens (should that happen over the next 4 years) there will be more and more papers dealing with climate sensitivity and each of these will suggest lower and lower sensitivity. That must be the case. This is why Paris 2015 truly is the last stop cafe. If no deal is done (and that looks impossible given China’s and India’s position), the fate appears cast that there never will be a global deal effectively and significantly cutting CO2 emissions since it appears that the wheels are fast falling off the CAGW wagon. The final death knell will be a cold winter in Europe and/or the states with brown outs. That will really waken up Joe Public to smell the coffee.

They are not up-in-arms, as unlike you, they are not manipulated by a deniers website. There were various models, and of course, this website only shows the most extreme one, and as predicted all the arm-chair experts, with no education in the science, are up-in-arms over something they really know very little about. Attend a conference, get a degree, read 3 dozen papers, then write your big rant, this time without the one-sided slant. Details are always up for debate. What is settled is 1. CO2 heats the atmosphere. 2. Humans pump known volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere. 3. Our CO2 levels are higher than naturally events can account for. 4. We are heating more than nature can account for.
All the details, models, speed of change, and what we do about it, is all up for debate. It is just juvenille to point out a detail in error and then claim everything is “wrong wrong wrong”. That is like using a plane crash to prove air-travel is impossible.
Regarding the “pause”http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006179
Regarding the models:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate
(try to stay up to date too).

They will continue to make outrageous claims. Here’s a news clip of NASA scientist Dennis Bushnell telling us that sea level will go up between seven and eight feet by the end of the century. That requires an average rate of over 28 mm/yr starting right now, or a steady acceleration of 0.6 mm/yr² for the next 85 years yielding a final rate of sea level rise by the end of the century of nearly 55 mm/yr or a millimeter per week. He might as well be telling us he was born on Mars.

The reason I like to follow the Sea Level Ruse 🙂 issue is that we will know precisely in a few decades how wrong all these forecasts have been. With temperatures, regardless of how flat or downward the trends are, the comeback will always be that had it not been for negative forcings, the temperatures would have gone up more. The debate of AGW will go on for generations due to the difficulty to falsify either way. By 1930, the trends in SLR will be either accelerating or not and we will have observable proof.

Leif ,I am simply going by present and past data which has brought me to the conclusions I have come up with.
Yes I will admit to being wrong if solar activity approaches my solar parameters and the global temperature trend does not decline.
Many agree more or less with what I say, while many others (as you do) do not agree.
That is fine, because every single aspect of this subject of How The Climate May Change is in dispute.
There is no agreement, and given that only future data and time will tell who is most correct.
My approach has changed in that I am going to rely on data and not turn to theories to try to find out How The Climate May Change.
You could be correct, I could be wrong only time will tell. As of now none of us really know for if we did these discussions would not be occurring on an ongoing basis.

The very big problem with your theory is how do you reconcile abrupt climate changes which have taken place countless times in the past with this explanation?
lsvalgaard
May 29, 2015 at 1:42 pm
The sun does have an influence on the climate, but it is minor. CO2 does have an influence too, but also minor [with the amounts we are putting out]. Internal fluctuations [e.g. of ocean circulation] may be the causes for changes on the scale of decades or centuries, while changes in the Earth’s orbit [mainly caused by Jupiter] are the cause of glaciations. Over billions of years, the Sun eventually becomes the dominant cause, but we don’t need to worry about that for now.

Obviously they adjusted their predictions when the volcanic eruptions occurred. Not very accurately as was pointed out. But what did the original prediction look like from 1979 before they made their adjustments? We could see how far off they really are!

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley on May 29, 2015 at 12:16 pm said,
“Well, to be fair to them, science is always simply the best explanantion we have of something. So theories always change. That’s what sets it apart from the absurdity of religion. We can never be sure about something unless it’s fundamental (some say we can’t even be sure about science ‘truths’). Where the divergence is occuring is in an inability to change quickly enough. It’s becoming quite obvious that the models were woefully ridiculous (which scientist said something similar, Trenberth?), but scientists seem loath to admit they were wrong with haste. [. . .]”

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley,
It is futile to mix philosophy of science discussion with theology discussion, unless the discussion is strictly within the context of demarcating which has a metaphysics and epistemology that is objectively demonstrable; objectively demonstrable via independently corroborated (from manifold sources with widely diverse independency) observations of reality / nature.Science has no basis in theology. The evidence forming the basis of that statement is that scientists can be simply total naturalists (theologians inaccurately calls them ‘aethesists’) or they can be simply total supernaturalists (divine being believers) or they can have random (even contratdictory) thoughts at a whim in the matter (such as some philosophical pragmatists). My conclusion has consistently been (during 40+ years of discussions with theologians) that religion (& theology) has no fundamental irrelevancy to any scientific epistemology process or any scientific metaphysics process.
Take care.
John

Yeah, ok John! If I can be of help to you; try writing more clearly. No one wants to search for the subtext. As an 1-minute essay, read my piece (that you quote), then read yours. I had to read yours twice – people on net forums shouldn’t have to do that. If is not an exercise in futilty to mix ‘science’ with religious belief within a discussion. One is the best explanation we have, based on hypothesis, experimentation and results, the other is simply a human construct that is full of logical contradiction, and one that offers an explanation that is not provable or testable.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley on May 30, 2015 at 11:22 am ,
– – – – – – –
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley,
It is futile discussion as I said unless it is a demarcation of what is science and what is not science. Serious hard physical science dialogs consider theology irrelevant. Don’t you think so?
As to everyone’s view of writing styles and other’s likes and dislikes no comment. Although I wish everyone had access to an editorial board service before posting their comments. I do mean everyone.
John

lsvalgaard
May 30, 2015 at 12:20 pm
Science is not Opinions. Pseudo science and wishful thinking are.
Who is wishing ? I am simply going by the data which does not support the assertions that solar/climate relationships do not exist.
I have yet to see data that counters this.
You may not agree and that is fine. This is why these discussions are presently going on because of the different take different people have on the data and the cause of why /how the climate may change.
You can not convince me that I am wrong and I can not convince you that I am correct.
This is how it is and will be until future data decides the verdict.

There are no data supporting what you claim. There are many claims and counter-claims, but none of them are convincing.
And i’m really interesting in convincing you about anything. True believers in a cause cannot be convinced otherwise. And it is not worth even trying. It is worth, though, pointing out that their so-called data and evidence do not hold up.

on the contrary, I’m perfectly willing to change my position when the data compels me to do so.
In fact I have done so in the past.
I’m partly credited with reviving the Sun/Weather/Climate field back in the 1970s. Here is one my most famous papers [cited 116 times and still cited today]:https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=qFdb2fIAAAAJ:zYLM7Y9cAGgC
Solar magnetic sector structure: relation to circulation of the earth’s atmosphere
John M Wilcox, Philip H Scherrer, Leif Svalgaard, Walter Orr Roberts, Roger H Olson
1973/4/13, Science, Volume 180, Issue 4082, Pages 185-186
Abstract The solar magnetic sector structure appears to be related to the average area of high positive vorticity centers (low-pressure troughs) observed during winter in the Northern Hemisphere at the 300-millibar level. The average area of high vorticity decreases (low-pressure troughs become less intense) during a few days near the times at which sector boundaries are carried past the earth by the solar wind. The amplitude of the effect is about 10 percent.
Unfortunately, subsequent data showed that the effect was spurious. But there are still serious researchers [e.g. Brian Tinsley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Tinsley ] believing in the effect.

I do not see cooling in atmospheric temperatures (what regional or global temperature data set do you see a downward trend???). However, since the equatorial band easterly trade winds have calmed down to the point that the doldrums have set in and warm water has sloshed eastward and risen to the top, I will say that simple physics tells me that the oceans are dumping stored heat into the atmosphere, meaning they are losing heat. This heat rises and is eventually lost through the atmospheric layers and out to space. But this is not happening to the degree that the atmosphere is cooling down. It appears to be rather stable after 1998.

Nor yours which does not explain why the climate changes.
You can not reconcile abrupt climate changes with your thinking of how the climate system works. In contrast my opinion piece offers an explanation.

I wonder about how the alignment at 1979 in the diagram was done, and the baseline that was used to calculate the anomalies. Might see if I can find the original. Either way, it is probably not peer-reviewed.

Very few, if any, climate “scientists” will ever admit that they were wrong. What is more likely is that some people will wake up one morning, and the thought will occur to them that they haven’t heard anything about (what was it called?) ah yes, “climate change” for several years.

the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.
Jct: Not “we were wrong!” Not “oops!” They used a “trick” to “hide” the decline. That’s no oops. WE LIED! would be better. WE HID THE TRUTH would be good too. But not mere “we were wrong” as any innocently wrong person could mitigate. They lied to hide the truth. Tougher to admit, right?

Except that the alleged “trick” had nothing to do with falsifying the data and everything to do with a technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data.
It is like a “trick” I use when I enter data into a spreadsheet if the data is all numbers; I use the numeric keypad portion of the keyboard.

Great article and great comments. This is passionate topic, obviously. It is fascinating to me that not one person has taken into account Geo-engineering, HAARP, and the man made manipulation of the weather. Cloud seeding is child’s play (Project Popeye). Even China can make it snow (simply search “China makes it snow”). No conspiracy here, fact.
Now, by reading some comments about how hard it is to admit you are wrong (Tolstoy), or admit that people do bad things, “until I saw it for myself”, I realize there will be a lot of people who will immediately cry foul. Ask yourself, which agenda are you promoting?
Wake up. A mind is like a parachute. It only works if it is open.

I believe they will only say they were wrong when the money stops or they get into real legal trouble. In other words when the poop hits the fan. The question is when did they realize they were wrong or did most of them know it was mostly a scam from the start in the late 80s?

“It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked …”
Unfortunately it is not only possible, it happens all the time. Human psychology trumps scientific merit any day of the week. The deadly mix of cognitive dissonance (Hell, I’m not wrong); central government money (billions and billions); and a strong dose of ideology (we need green energy; never mind that it won’t do anything for the climate) wins. You hear it every day from the current occupant of the WH and the horde of lackey media twits that carry the water for him.

Which graph would that be?
The graph that looks nothing like the preliminary MCIP5 model outputs?
Or the graph that shows global temperatures from 1996 to 2014 but uses data that does not include the temperatures from the oceans below the surface and the temperatures from the Arctic (poleward of 82.5N) & the Antarctic (south of 70S) regions?
Also, who ever claimed that the models were, or would be, perfect?

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
In any other area of the ‘sciences’, observations and data would be rigorously checked against the hypothesis and corrected accordingly. Not so in the elite ‘science’ of global warming, climate change, climate disruption, where such discovery is immune and condemned.
Too much money and too many reputations within the climate industry are now at stake, to uphold the most basic of scientific methods – the verification of data.
Sad and dangerous times for all the sciences indeed.

One would think that those making tens of billions a year in profits, each, off of fossil fuels would get some value for the scientists they have put on their payroll to sow doubt about science like the tobacco companies did.
The average tenured geosciences department professor, who could also be considered to be a leader against global warming by many; earned about $120,000 in 2010, so what too much money are you talking about?
Willie Soon’s climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1,200,000.00 from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade. On top of his listed day job at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that was also funded by “grants.”
He gets reasonable money to play tobacco scientist doctor, an easy cake walk job. And the best he could come up with was crap like questioning if the Arctic is warming when some of those funding him are greedily eying the potential for resource extraction once the Arctic is ice free in the summer. Followed by the easily disproven, from publicly available satellite & ground data, simpleton BS that the sun is somehow magically involved because no one can prove how it is magically involved given the fact that the solar cycle is acting normally – And he thinks that because no one can prove that the sun is responsible, that somehow they are also not able to prove that it is not responsible.
He gets reasonable money to play tobacco scientist doctor, an easy cake walk job. And he has a degree in something climate related, yet not a peep out of him on the actual science. Not even lame attempts to discredit the science behind determining what the geochemical characteristics of various gasses are and how each source of CO2 has its own different isotopic composition.
He gets reasonable money to play tobacco scientist doctor, an easy cake walk job. And he has a degree in something climate related, yet not a peep out of him on the actual science. Not even lame attempts to discredit the science behind the fact that CO2/AGW linkage was irrefutably proven after it was “found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation.”
No lame attempts at calling into question the science behind high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy. Because climate scientists now can, by “Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy” “measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.” Also, they can now “see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.”
He and his ilk need to get on these latest scientific discoveries and make their tobacco scientist doctor forefathers/predecessors/mentors proud. They will also be doing all the criminals who were convicted by FTIR based forensics a very large favor.

RACookPE1978
How many Big Government-paid climate “scientists” can I buy for 1.3 trillion in new taxes for alleged Bigger Government, and 31 trillion in Big Finance carbon credits?
How many engineers would I hire would also be more accurate. The science is settled, I would anticipate for the worst and we do not need more scientists for that. That way if the worst did not transpire we would still be ahead and if the worst does happens we will be ready for it.
That would depend if I were given all the money or if I would have to share it with AGW remediation and/or AGW disaster prevention projects or even with other non-climate related agencies/departments, like the Pentagon, who will try claiming that AGW will also impact them in order to get their hands on some of the money.
How much will it cost to demolish one, or more, of the Rockies and ship the back fill to Florida and raise the entire state, while trying to keep everything intact during the move, up 12 feet? (I read that Chicago had to do something similar over/around 100 years ago.)

How much will it cost to demolish one, or more, of the Rockies and ship the back fill to Florida and raise the entire state, while trying to keep everything intact during the move, up 12 feet? (I read that Chicago had to do something similar over/around 100 years ago.)

Your exaggeration makes no sense – and reveals the depths of your desperation, your exaggerated fears, and a total lack of technical knowledge to discuss any part of the CO2 situation, sea level rise, and CAGW.
Sea level rise might be as much as 20 inches, not 12 feet, if the latest trends continue until 2100 – and that is not likely. World temperatures will be as likely to have fallen by 2100 as to have risen higher than today’s averages – and even more likely to be lower in 2200 or 2300 – than today.
No part of Florida (even Miami) needs to be raised 20 inches, much less 12 feet.
No part of the Rockies needs to be “demolished” in any event to “raise the entire state”: Even the center of the Everglades is higher than 24 inches above sea level. Have you ever read a topographic map of FL? Of the Appalachians? The AL and central FL highlands?

Even back in 1995 the disconnect between thermometers as presented versus the weather balloons and satellite data was already 0.2C. And this was noted at the time. They jumped all over Christie about it, didn’t they?
This marks 20 years I guess. And they THOUGHT they’d shut up everybody about the balloons and satellites.
And now, the models don’t even agree with the thermometers. In the wrong direction – away from being in better alignment with the balloons and satellites.
Climatology seems to be about the only science where data AS MEASURED is twiddled with to give them what they want. In any other science it is called fudging the data and will get someone expelled from jobs, careers, and get papers withdrawn.
How in the hell did they manage that? An entire discipline (almost) completely ignoring the actual data?

Except for the fact that sometimes the twiddling lowers the temperature being measured. Certain regions are cooled. Other regions are warmed. On balance the effect of adjustments is inconsequential. (If there were actually fiddling with the data, you would never have heard about the twiddling in the first place.)
You also forget that the Koch Foundation was the largest funder of a comprehensive study, ran by, at the time, a climate science skeptic, into this very issue.
Here is the money quote:
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
But if you really believe deep down inside that the twiddling is responsible for the continued downward trend in the Arctic ice pack, then patent it and sell it to Shell who is chomping at the bit to drill in the now “magically because of this twiddling” ice free portions of the Arctic. (I am sure that the Russians would also be very interested in investing in it.)
P.S. Had they not adjusted for the bias that was created when, in the 50’s/1960, temperature measurements were taken in the afternoon instead of in the mornings, people would be claiming that AGW was a fantasy because they failed to take obvious biases into account.
It is well documented fact, by everyone, science haters included, that MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. Had they not adjusted for that bias, people would be claiming that AGW was a fantasy because they failed to take other more obvious biases into account.

Leftists don’t admit they were wrong.
.
They just stop talking about a subject when they finally realize they are wrong.
.
That’s why they are now silent on past environmental boogeymen such as DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, etc. etc.
Then they invent a new environmental boogeyman … that must be fought the same way as all the old boogeyman: Slower economic growth, slower population growth, more powerful central government, etc.
Climatology (climate modeling) is not science, because climate models are not data, and without data, there is no science.
Global warming for non-scientists at this blog:http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

They are still working on the CMIP5 models so they cannot be wrong.
Furthermore, the outputs are off by a tenth, or two tenths, of a degree (sometimes predicting colder temperatures) from the observed temperatures.
And I have yet to see a model predicting a 0.6 degree increase over what was observed after 2014 because the test runs all end at 2013 and as was pointed out: the outputs are off by a tenth, or two tenths, of a degree.
Knowing the CATO Institute, they probably took all the very small variance of all the different models, some not even trying to model the same things, and added them all up to make the red line. Because the model “average” at times is measured in the hundredths of a degree off of what was observed.
What was also observed shows global and regional temperatures that do not make 1998 the “global warming has stopped for the past 15-17 years” goalpost that some have tried to peddle.

@Kumi Lemi “(sometimes predicting colder temperatures)”
– How many, exactly, of the 102 CMIP-5 climate models (models that dictate radical climate and economic policy) predicted “colder temperatures”?
How many out of the 102?
– And of the 102, how many are running too hot and do not, in any way shape or form, resemble real-world-observations?
Most of the model divergence work was done by Climate “Scientists” like John Christy….not the CATO institute.
See Christy’s testimony before Congress about the ‘radical’ divergence between model output and reality:https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/

How many models that were never sold as being 100% accurate were off by a few tenths of a degree, up or down you are asking me: I do not know because it was, and still is, not relevant to what I was pointing out.

Government’s base their entire climate policy, not on real world observations, rather what overheated models tell us 50-100 years from now. You don’t think the fact models do not resemble real world data, is a problem for forecasting and future climate policy?

So much for the BS that the chart is the average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models.
A call the Easterbrook inquiring as to where he got the chart resulted in a “I can’t find it anymore. It must have been removed.”
After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model, the HadCM3 temperature simulation which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gas changes only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing. It represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.

RACookPE1978
What alleged exaggeration would that be?
I was merely inquiring if you knew what the cost of doing something would be.
If I was going to imply what the sea level rise would be, I would have used the actual long term projection number. Just the partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, could contribute 13 to 20 feet, or more, to sea level rise. So my 12 feet is an understatement.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate
I think we should be happy its not heating as fast as the worst predictions. Still heating though. Scientists will admit they are wrong, when new evidence shows it. I don’t think NASA and a 100 organisations from Norway to China ando Australia are all collaborating in a giant hoax for funding dollars. With no evidence for that, only wild imagination, I find it very hard to believe. Nothing is impossible, but either is big-foot and UFOs.
If you want money, start a business, go into politics. No one does science to make money. That’s laughable. Not as laughable as skeptics, often uneducated in science, with not even a measly degree, pretending to be experts, pretending to know more than thousands of teams of scientists in various disciplines all over world.
When the arrogance of arm-chair experts admit they are not scientists and should stop pretending a giant hoax exists?

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h–/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/1/1380599335494/ProjvsObs450.jpg
IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red). IPCC
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.
The first report was over-estimated (seems this thread is based on that graph, and not any subsequent ones). The next one, under-estimated the rate of change. The third and fourth have improved modelling that fits the data.
Here it is in black and white. Keeping up to date is helpful.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy